Incidentally, when I was reading around The Golden Bough, back in the psychedelic ages, it was well understood that Frazer, far from making the distinction between magic and religion absolute, merely refrained from explicitly adding Jesus to the long list of lamed Kings sacrificed to the gods, so as not to frighten the horses - leaving the intelligent reader to make the obvious connections. Robert Graves had no such qualms, and his King Jesus is worth a look as is everything I've ever come across of his, even the science fiction.

I do appreciate the more scholarly angle he is taking on the topic, he really does a good job. But I don't know how much I can handle of this particular topic, maybe it really doesn't deserve this much attention. — ChatteringMonkey

A podcast about the clever ways folk get things wrong. — Banno

I would appreciate particularly the sceptical response to Episode 5: Methodologies for the Study of Magic. However the warning about glamour particularly applies to the sceptic if they assume a superior position. One of the aspects of magic discussed is that of its normativity - magic as foreign/illegitimate religion. The high priests of science have cast out all the demons? Then why are we not in heaven already?

Since there are ≈
≈
365 days in a year, ignoring the 1/4 day,

a week should have 5 days! (5 goes into 365) — Agent Smith

Why "should" there be a week of any length? But better numerologists than you, also ignoring the 1/4, choose a year of 364 days and then an extra day that is no day. This gives 13 28day months, each comprising exactly 4 7day weeks. And hence the commonplace tradition of contracts and indentures that were for 'a year and a day' (Also the duration of the voyage of The Owl and the Pussycat).

...Does this forum have an ignore feature? — emancipate

You just have to summon the appropriate Demiurge and instruct them to cast a shadow of ignorance in the direction required. but I haven't got to that podcast yet, so I have no details.

If you click on the link, each podcast has a reading list and some notes and the odd link.

Part of the significance that I want to look at or for in the thread discussion is how the perennial new-age spiritual revival relates to recent, particularly right wing, history, from The Nazis to to QAnon. And perhaps in this context, a little health warning is in order. Beware the Glamour!

Glamour -- "Mental illusion when intensified by desire, occurring on the astral plane. ... The emanatory astral reactions which each human being initiates ever surround him and through this fog and mist he looks out upon a distorted world." — Google, channelling Alice Bailey

The curiosity of such a fog is that it manifests as clarity - the deeper one is en-fogged, the more certain one is of the clarity of one's vision. Glamour is the source of all fundamentalism.

a poor second. — Agent Smith

Yes. That is the way of looking that I am criticising; looking at philosophy as a poor second to science. Idolatry of the Fact.

This is the model of philosophy as science we haven't done yet. It's amazingly popular considering what a travesty it is of anything resembling philosophy. Rather, while science consists of models or pictures of the world, philosophy offers ways of looking. To the philistine, there is only one 'right' way to look at things.

I'd like to suggest a bit of discussion about the difficulties of addressing questions like this.

First, most of the site members are male, and rather few of them have made any study of feminist philosophies or women philosophers in general.

Second, most societies for most of history have been male dominated. I think it is safe to say, that if power does not necessarily corrupt, it at least tends to distort. It is very easy to come up with a list like 's showing that the extremes of virtue and vice, or talent and creativity, or any other vague metric are almost exclusively male. One might consider where Joan of Arc, Bloody Mary, Elizabeth1, fit in, but the list of females in power is so short, that the statistics are always going to be suspect when generalised. The argument for the mediocrity of a group that has always been excluded on the basis of their mediocrity is - weak. {And therefore unworthy of a male :wink: }

For another example of the circularity, it is often maintained that there have been no great female artists. Once we know this, we need not waste our time looking at women's art. Therefore it is not bought, does not hang in prestigious galleries, and no one really sees it. and the absence from the prestigious galleries proves that women's art is universally mediocre. But now spend some time looking at this gallery: https://www.facebook.com/female.artists.in.history/ - just look at how much of it there is throughout history, and the almost inescapable conclusion is that the trope of female mediocrity is itself part of the social system that keeps women in a state of subservience.

It might be an idea, if one is looking for a possible difference in the morality and ethics of men and women, to look at a couple of women philosophers' writings. For example, compare and contrast the moral philosophies of Jean Paul Sartre, and Iris Murdoch - a pair of C20th novelists and philosophers.

{I'm not sure, but I think that is the first mention in the thread of an actual woman philosopher; and that rather exemplifies the whole difficulty - that folks are content with their prejudices and do not want to challenge themselves, especially on a topic that impinges so directly on their own identity.}

I had covid back when there was only one version, then 2 astra jabs and a pfizer boost and a few weeks earlier, the flu jab. And when I get offered another booster, I'll be there for it, because my mild covid was no fun at all.

And at the moment I have an ordinary cold - sore throat runny nose temperature, and that's not very much fun... but that's sod's law.

Go drinking with your buddies. — Agent Smith

Daughter visited this weekend and mentioned that the alcoholics in the hospital where she works routinely steal and drink the hand sanitiser. Now that's dedication.

Sometimes we live no particular way but our own
And sometimes we visit your country and live in your home
Sometimes we ride on your horses, sometimes we walk alone
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own — Hunter/Garcia

Therefore, there are some times.

Although, it seems, we can make more sense of the question, "Do bishops move diagonally?" - than we can of the question, "Do I have hands?" — Sam26

There are circumstances; phantom limbs, numbness or paralysis, alien limb syndrome, perhaps some virtual reality aps, where the possession of a hand becomes a real question. But these situations where the question becomes real and meaningful, are outside the realm in which one discusses philosophy. If I don't know whether this is my hand or not, I won't be going to a philosophy site to find out. Here we assume that we each know how many hands we got if not which orifice we speak out of.

This seems really straightforward to me. It is never the business of medics to be in moral judgement of their patients. everyone is equally entitled to the best treatment available, and rationing if necessary should be decided on who is likely to have the most benefit. That is a hard enough calculation on its own without bringing in moral judgements.

The penalty for various crimes is laid out by law, and it almost never includes the forfeit of the right to medical care. And nor should it. The connection with the death penalty is obvious - it is a death penalty with a random element added. And the same problem arises, that convictions can be overturned and found to have been wrong.

The victim's mother came forward, and made an argument that this man should not have received the transplanted heart. He did not deserve it. — Cobra

So if the man is later exonerated, this woman is responsible for the death of an innocent man. Should she in turn forfeit her right to treatment? Let's not go there.

You think the bible's bad? you should try Aesop's fables.

Childish pranks punished by being eaten by wolves, Grasshopper attention deficit punished by being cast out of society and left to freeze and starve. You won't believe how immoral this collection is.

I was thinking of the epidemic of self-harm, and those crowds of ill wishers waiting outside jails for news of the execution of prisoners, and then I thought of this:

Coichetti says that he has helped people from all walks of life suspend, including lawyers, wrestlers, doctors, acrobats and politicians.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/the-therapeutic-experience-of-being-suspended-by-your-skin/262644/

It's art, it's therapy, and it's traditional, and even lawyers do it. You can have my place in the queue.

And I won't be joining this tribe either, wimp that I am: https://www.travellerspoint.com/community/oceania/crocodile-initiation-ceremony-sepik-river-papua-new-guinea/

I think there is a difference between the sense of self and the self itself. — hopeful

It would be useful to have some context for particularly the notion of ego death. If people talk about in descriptions of NDEs etc, it because it is a term familiar from elsewhere.

Ego death is a "complete loss of subjective self-identity" — Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

This fragment allows me to rephrase your opening remark: there is a difference between the self and the self-identity/ego.

Now identification is a familiar process that has great importance, for example, to mushroom gatherers. They need to reliably identify the edible and poisonous mushrooms and ensure that they only pick the edible ones. Note that it is a process of thinking that humans go through. The mushrooms are passive, and oblivious.

So self-identification is a thought process humans go through to distinguish self from non-self. for example:

These are my thoughts, which I give to you and the world to read, typed by my fingers on my laptop inmy living-room, as a member in good standing of The Philosophy Forum

Thus it can be seen that self-identification includes the mind and body and material objects, places and associations - to greater or lessor extents. There're core and peripheral aspects. It hurts when I lose my laptop, and it hurts more when I lose my finger. But these thoughts are immediately replaced in the same way that lunch follows dinner.

And all of this (as I identify myself) is ego. And it is all an ongoing habitual way of thinking, which might cease, but probably won't. The permanent cessation of this process of identification is what constitutes ego death. There is a body still and thoughts and a computer, but I am no longer attached to them, they are just part of the local scene. whether or not such a complete cessation occurs in any individual case, is a matter of speculation, but it is "philosophically possible" in that it is not, ahem "self-contradictory".
It would be self-contradictory though to to claim ego death as an identity; hence "Those who speak do not know, Those who know, do not speak."

Shamelessly stealing this from EnPassant in the climate thread. Not even new, but illuminates this ahem,"discussion". "Catabolic capitalism" - a really useful concept, hurl it at your interlocutor.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/15/can-we-exit-this-road-to-ruin

But here is a demonstration that time is real:- it is 4 minutes since I made that post.

It's impossible to prove that my underpants are real. I might be able to demonstrate that they are, but proofs are arrangements of words, and no arrangement of words can oblige the universe to manifest anything or prevent it from doing so. A proof is not a magic spell.

It's a cakes and eating them problem.

Everyone prefers, all else being equal:
Low taxes to high taxes.
More government spending to less.
Fiscal responsibility to irresponsibility.

Unfortunately, all else cannot be equal, and one can only have 2 of the 3 at once, and one gets what one doesn't want for the 3rd.

More unfortunately, it is quite likely that equal numbers of people, even with the understanding of this, will choose each option as their lowest priority. This has the result that there is a strong majority in favour of all 3 options, and even a sensible electorate votes for the impossible. (This is called 'the tragedy of the arithmetic'.)

Even more unfortunately, electorates are not always sensible.

Most unfortunately, politicians lie and make impossible promises.

But alas, and alack, I fear that most people vote selfishly for what they think will be to their economic advantage; poor people vote for high government spending, and the wealthy vote for low taxes. Altruistic people would tend to vote on behalf of poor people I guess, feeling that the wealthy will benefit less from an increase in wealth. But I doubt they form a majority of voters. So no, voting is not inherently altruistic.

We can love our leaders — Athena

You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him: you must love him. — George Orwell

We live in anarchy: therefore there is and can be no prohibition on government. All government and all resistance to government are equally legitimate. Those who wish to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate government can only do so by means of legislation, and are thus setting themselves up as the government of governments, aka God. And the best of luck to you all with that!

Might not an individual consciousness ontically create some of the mechanical process of its own thought? — javra

Yes indeed. The player creates input data to the machine; the spiritual being provokes human thought and human action that would not happen otherwise.

In which ways do you find this relevant to the topics of this thread? — javra

In the odd suggestion that the individual is not the locus of freedom after all, but the communication in dialogue. In the idea from Fromm, that the authoritarian is necrophilic, the enemy of 'life', which in context can be seen as equivalent to freedom. But Maybe one day I'll start a Friere thread if I'm feeling bold.

This is a bit tangental, but might give another perspective on the source of freedom ...

http://accountability.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2016/08/Philosophy-of-Education-Chapter-2_-Pedagogy-of-the-Oppressed.pdf

When I get all my ducks in a row, they take up more space than when they are not in a row, because the row takes up extra space, just as when I put them in a box, the box takes up extra space.

Is there any point entertaining a question, the answer to which could never be determined (beyond entertaining it just once in order to realize what alternative possibilities are imaginable)?
— Janus

With what I just said in mind, imo, sure there are substantial points to entertaining non-physicalist systems of ontology. — javra

A decent analogy is a computer game. Within the game, everything is fully determined by the programmed flow of information, and every move of every game entity is fully determined, except those of the players, whose decisions moves and interventions come from outside the game world in meat-space. The question becomes, are we pre-programmed game characters or players of the game? If we are players, then we have an existence outside the physical universe, and there is an aspect of spirituality to our being. Religion is concerned with players, and science with the game.

There is no point looking in the 0s and 1s of the game for evidence of players; only 0s and 1s will be found. The avatar of a player and the avatar of a programmed game character are made of the same stuff. But in relation to my previous argument, I would suggest that while consciousness might be put forward as the unique attribute of a player, thought is very much a mechanical process of 0s and 1s.

Free will is the partly-determinate ontic ability to actualize different outcomes in those self-identical situations wherein one deliberates between two or more possible outcomes – this such that the decision one makes between said alternatives will be partly determined by, at the very minimum, one’s momentarily held goal (i.e., long term intent; long term desired outcome). — javra

On the menu is tea or coffee (2 different possible outcomes). My momentary long term desired outcome is coffee. The decision is coffee.

Where is the ability to actualise a different outcome, viz. tea? My fixed desire is for coffee. Does that make mean I do not have free will? Some choose variety, I choose consistency. This " ability to actualize different outcomes" is where all the difficulty hides.

You are conflating “choice” (common standard English synonym for “will”) with “desire” (archaic synonym for “will”). — javra

Yes, that is the simplification I mentioned. But the distinction I want to make clear is between if you like, choice as the number of items on the menu, and choice as the act of deciding what meal to order. I am saying one has freedom to the extent that is more than one item on the menu, and one exercises will in choosing what to order from the menu. That is the conflation that 'free will' makes, in the philosophical context. of course in ordinary parlance, one distinguishes what is done of ones free will with what is done under coercion, rather than with determinism.

The virus is a ball with spikes like the pictures, and the spikes stick to living cells that it contacts, but only some kinds of, in this case, human cells. This produces an infected cell which copies the virus multiple times until it bursts, releasing the many copies into the nose, lungs, bloodstream or whatever. some of the copies are imperfect copies, most of which simply will not work, but one of which by accident might work better than the original. It attaches better or survives better in the air, or something. so as the copies copy copies of copies, one variant comes to dominate, and as vaccines or immune systems make progress in suppressing the original, variants that accidentally resist the body's defences spread more. This is more like water flowing downhill than any kind of fight, but from a human pov, the human can fight the current of water even though the water is not fighting at all.

But the idea of humans fighting nature is always problematic, and often misleading, if not dangerous. At the same time, if you fall in the river, maybe don't just 'go with the flow'.

That was my current intended point. This in opposition to the position of free will being nonsensical to begin with. — javra

My point was that your definition is already contradictory. One more time...

A chess player on her turn is free to make any legal move. Her will is to make the best move she can.
The only sense I can make of her 'free will' is not that she can make a poor move, but that she can stop playing chess.

The following is a simplification:-
Freedom is 'you can have what you want'
Free will is 'you can want what you don't want', or, 'you can not want what you want'. This contradiction is built in to your definition as...

different outcomes / effects can be generated in identical situations — javra

This contradiction gives rise to curious unproductive ways of (mis)understanding addiction. One is addicted to nicotine, and it is hard to stop smoking. It requires a huge effort of will. One tries, and fails, and tries again, one tries to smoke less, or to change to patches or vaping. One finds one is weak-willed. This is a familiar story to many.

But now retell the story with the contradiction exposed.

There is nothing easier than not doing something that one does not want to do. Therefore, one smokes because one wants to smoke, and although one wants to not want to smoke, that is not an available choice; the choice is to smoke or not smoke, and one wants to smoke. This is the difficulty, that freedom for the will is to want what one wants, and also to not want what one wants. The latter amounts to wanting to be other. It come to the fore in all forms of self-improvement and self-control where the condition for even expressing the situation is that there is an internal conflict in which one's weak will is fighting one's strong will or some such. To be in this conflict is not to be free at all. It is the state of addiction itself.

That's true indeed? — dimosthenis9

No, it is ironic parody. DNA has no aim, no feelings no awareness and makes no effort to achieve anything. But it is entirely natural for the human mind to treat the world as animated. It is just part of the way understanding works in a highly social species. So one tends to find that the volcano god is angry when the volcano erupts, and the river god is bountiful when it irrigates the fields, and the sea god is angry when the storm arises. The DNA god trying to make clever monkeys or whatever, is the continuation of this social minded understanding of nature.

People talk about 'the virus trying to survive and adapt' but if you care to put any virus under the microscope and watch it, you will see that it does exactly nothing. It just sits there until it falls apart. but one thinks of covid as a single united being that is an enemy of the people, and scheming to evade the tactics of humanity, in the same way as one thinks of a hurricane as some kind of malevolent entity, rather than the momentary random swirl of atmosphere that it is is. This 'convenient'.

I venture that the “free will” upheld by the people which endorse it is to be minimally understood as a semi-determinate process of effecting decisions wherein different outcomes / effects can be generated in identical situations — javra

Yes. A great definition since there are no identical situations. for example, I have coffee in the morning every day. My wife always has tea. The crucial situational difference is that we are different people with different preferences.

So F.W.Java notices this and says, " I challenge you, unenlightened, to show your free will by having tea tomorrow." So I have tea. the next day.
"That's no proof," says D.Javra, "because you have been determined by my brother's challenge to drink tea, and without it you would have had coffee again."

Stalemate.

So define freedom, such that it encompasses the available choices, tea and coffee, and will as the choice one makes...

... and see from there, what the definition of free will might be. I would like to feel that I don't have to be drinking tea so that my choice of coffee is free - if you see what I mean.

Really, DNA is always trying to end its miserable existence, and eventually, almost all strains and strands achieve this. What we see and what we are, are the few remaining bits that have not managed to get off the roundabout of reproduction. Thank goodness intelligence has evolved to the point where it can make the whole planet hostile to life at last.

It's an addiction philosophers suffer from to conjoin the concepts of freedom and will. They are radically opposed in a way that leads to contradiction and paradox. I am free to walk to town, or take the bus; but I am only free to take the bus at the times the bus runs, and am only free to walk as long as my feet are not too painful.

Thus the bank robber asked why he robbed banks: "Because that's where the money is." One can say that he is determined by his will to become instantly rich, to rob banks, just as I am determined by my will to save my hurty feet, to catch the bus.

Thus will ends freedom, because the decision acts. I decide to take the bus, and my future is determined thereby.

So to ask if there is "free will" is to be caught between asking if one can be free from the determinations of one's will, and asking whether one can determine one's determinations before one has determined them. Neither make sense, and so there can be no resolution, and we are, alas, bound forever to revisit the topic in a vain attempt to understand nonsense, until a fuller understanding liberates us.

It's amazing how child-like some people are. They don't think too deeply. — frank

I'm amazed you think children do not think deeply.

it's more like a way of life than a logical structure. — fdrake

Yes. The mentalist approach is upside-down. Banno's belief analysis is incomplete; "I believe in justice." does not mean that I believe justice is real, or prevails, or is even possible. It is a commitment. Action flows from the commitment, and belief summarises action rather than guides it.

What relationship do you see this as having to the thread's argument that belief in Hell is a mark on their character or moral judgement? What application of a moral Black Spot does it carry? — fdrake

Rather as one does not think of permanent tooth loss as a cruel and disproportionate divine punishment for not brushing one's teeth.

Something is definitely found wanting in the believer due to their belief, here. — fdrake

this definiteness assumes that the believer can articulate the nuances of their own beliefs in a way that makes them coherent and understandable to the unbeliever. Even competent philosophers are incapable of articulating their beliefs so unambiguously.

Let me pronounce a thread heresy: everlasting =/= eternal.

If one supposes that the temporal world is created form 'outside', then one can reasonably imagine that it has a purpose. Humans are inclined to make themselves central to such a purpose, and being human myself, I don't have a major problem with that idea. So the Christian understanding is usually not one of reincarnation, but a one time chance to form a moral being through time. Death completes the process of moral formation, and the moral being is 'solidified' into a realm outside time and space, as an eternal being.

So if that is how things stand, it is necessarily the case without time, that whatever one has made of one's life for good or ill in this world is what one is stuck with - timelessly, eternally. Hell is being Hitler, or being unenlightened, with no more chance of reformation or redemption. It's not everlasting, because lasting is what time does, and there is no time. "It is what it is." "I am what I yam." "Before Abraham was, I Am."

A nicely judged comment, if you don't mind my saying so. :hearts:

There are alternatives apart from the man or the state.

Partnerships, cooperatives, not for profit enterprises, charities, etc. that can be found in retail, finance, manufacturing, and service industries. A state which is not totally corrupted should provide a regulatory system that allows such alternatives to compete on that level playing field where the market is always supposed to have its competitive being.

It is surely obvious that there is no line. What is unacceptable is defined by folks not accepting it. What folks will not accept varies. What is accepted by a member in good standing may not be acceptable as a first post; what is unacceptable to me may be acceptable to you, and may be acceptable to me too on a good day.

Nevertheless, the community develops an ethos through moderation and complaints and discussion of moderation. Consistency evolves rather than being laid down in statute.

It is the concern only of trolls to know exactly how much offence they can give before they are ejected.

the view of some Christians in this would be very interesting — Isaac

I cited an article describing the current pope's view, in the very first response to the op. It was dismissed thus:

is your point that good catholics, the pope included, do not actually believe the doctrine they espouse? That would indeed be a good thing. Would that they did not then feel obligated to pretend that they do, when dealing with events in the world. — Banno

Bish bash bosh, Christians not actively evil are merely hypocrites.

Anyway, I'll leave you all to it; I'm getting depressed.