and we know that Bach created greater musical works than probably anyone today — Janus

So how is that statement not sophistry?

How is saying that it is not a fact sophistry?


So that my post is on topic I will bring the sophistry back in line with the thread:

Of course drugs are NOT immoral, anyone with a brain can figure that out :grimace:

A male politician probably won't introduce a law to deny men voting rights, but he may dismiss laws aimed at addressing female-on-male rape. — Not Steve

This is an example of a BIG problem for a men's movement (my opinion). I think everyone (maybe almost everyone?) would agree that males raping females is still a MUCH bigger problem than vice versa. So if we are discussing where limited resources should go, it seems obvious.

Are there any men's problems, that are ONLY men's problems, that men suffer from far more than ANYONE else? Oh, and we can't celebrate male traits that are NOT good traits anymore. Just because being big and violent was good for caveman, does NOT mean we should be celebrating {or even excusing if the male is over 20} that behavior - humans have all sort of natural negative traits that we go through efforts to reduce.

If it does not check all of these boxes, there will be pushback (and I mean justified rational pushback, not just "all men are bad" nonsense).

A man's rights movement sounds awfully feminine — Merkwurdichliebe

hahaha. Nicely done. I think that single statement finds a way to offend everyone involved.

And to the OP:

I would suggest that MOVEMENTS are needed when government is NOT representative of the population it governs.

U.S. News and World Report gave the following statistics (related to elected officials in the US):

Despite white men comprising only 31 percent of the population, 97 percent of all Republican elected officials are white and 76 percent are male. Of all Democratic elected officials, 79 percent are white and 65 percent are male, according to the study.

That suggests to me that women and non-whites may be in need of a "movement" (and 97% white is freaking amazing - in a terrible way).

However, if +/- 70% of elected officials in the US are male, won't they ensure that laws are not dramatically unfair to men?

Also, movements are so much effort. Can't all these sensitive men just organize local meet-up groups where they can share their feelings? We are already training teachers to be more sensitive to the needs of little boys (they are not "bad" because they cannot sit still). What else is needed?

To what extent will we (my generation thereabouts) be morally culpable for our complacency with regards to the ecological crisis? — Grre

Well we can't expect dolphins or chimps to solve the problem, so humans are the only ones that can be held responsible. The only upside would be that the 2 or 3 generations prior to yours are probably more responsible (tough statement to prove, but I am sticking with it). I guess that is not really an upside, but takes away a bit of the moral culpability.

To what extent can we enact change, dispel this disinterest regarding the ecological crisis? — Grre

I am getting the sense that only thing that will dispel the disinterest (not just in your generation) is going to be catastrophe on a global scale. To paraphrase some terrible movie - it is not until we are on the precipice of annihilation that we will change.

Your generation seems FAR more interested than any of the previous generations, so maybe you all can get us moving in the right direction. Heck, despite the massive holes and incompleteness, I am still happy to attempt something like the Green New Deal, rather than just plod along waiting for the end.

What is philosophy's role? — Grre

Unfortunately, philosophy can only help those who are interested. At this point, I am leaning more toward rhetoric as the method of change. I wouldn't go as far as sophistry, but appeals to emotion and authority (celebrities not scientists) seem to have a better chance of impacting the average Joe or Josephine. I think climate change just needs an incredible spokesperson. Without some technological miracle, solving climate problems will require massive lifestyle cuts for most of us in the developed world. This spokesperson will have to convince us all that it is worth it. And more importantly, get the first of us to actually commit to the lifestyle. I don't mind cutting back on life's conveniences, but only if enough people do it to actually help, I am not going to be the ONLY one (and this attitude is part of the problem, sorry young people).

Should there be more emphasis on environmental philosophy?? — Grre

Can you imagine an opponent of climate action (anyone who is opposed to the idea of human caused climate change or that we can do anything about it) engaging in environmental philosophy? It would attract 99 pro-environment people for every one pro-humans over the environment person (I hope that sentence made sense). Anyone that considers climate change to be a "leftist conspiracy" is likely not very interested in environmental philosophy, so what would be the point? If it doesn't "convert" people, then does it serve a purpose? I am probably being too harsh. If it "converts" one person, I suppose it was worth it.

Is this disinterest from younger generations proof of the inevitability of such a crisis, are we really doomed? — Grre

We are probably doomed. But don't blame yourselves. I have actually been rather impressed with the level of interest from the youngest generations. This thread is just another example :smile:

There is a thesis (that I find correct) that what you're referring to is "ecological theater" which puts on stage ecological principles without solving anything. — boethius

Clever stuff. While I am not sure this thesis encompasses all environmental speech, you are certainly on to something :grin:

Well, and if art/entertainment is as good as ever, what would any of that matter, anyway? — Terrapin Station

That's what I am trying to figure out :grin:

I’m asking if there is an excess that is possibly damaging; today especially. — I like sushi

I think I am getting closer, but still have a couple questions on this bit:

"excess" - I assume this refers to an excess of art?

"damaging" - who or what is damaged? I think you mean that with excess quantity comes reduced quality? Why would that necessarily (or even typically) be true?

It seems you are thinking out loud, more than arguing, so maybe give me an example of the type of "damage" you are referring to, and that may help me think of other ways it could be damaging.

In society I believe that when people are restricted from expressing themselves then a certain force builds up - once freedom is given a new wave of creation explodes onto the cultural scene. — I like sushi

OK. thanks for the clarification. This makes much more sense now. I really was not sure what type of pressure release was being referred to.

What makes me curious is whether or not we’ve now got too much freedom and the kind of tension we’ve had in previous generations is nowhere near as severe today. — I like sushi

So I think you are suggesting that BECAUSE lives were worse (more difficult, etc) in the past, art may have been inspired by these difficulties? That seems plausible. However, like you said, we have more freedom of action, but tensions are actually INCREASING. As people no longer have to struggle to live, we have plenty of time to identify EVERY reason why other people are different and why our way is "better". Might this new tension create the "struggles" that artists need?

Am I at least on the right track? (even if you disagree, I THINK I am at least addressing your point)

Pain hurts.

It's not. But the moment you talk about it, it's an opinion. — YuZhonglu

So death is a fact? And facts exist? But if we talk about them then it is just opinion? If we created 2 A.I. entities could they communicate facts? What would that communication looks like?

I go by whatever a poster says and answer by my impression of if he is a believer or not. I sometimes miss the mark, like here apparently. Apologies. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

No problem. No non-believer should ever have to learn all that crap, so it was probably a fair assumption :smile:

That is not what I read, especially if I follow the stupid Trinity concept. Yahweh/Jesus sins quite a bit.
Even if I do not tie Jesus to Yahweh, I still see Jesus as sinning on occasion.

His fit against the merchants at the temple is just one example. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Know that I am likely to agree with most examples you give that show the wackiness of Christianity. Having dealt with A LOT of apologetics though, I could guess one possible answer (and of course there is favorite standby of "god works in mysterious ways", ugh). It would be the same answer as why the old testament god was not sinning when he was accepting sacrifices and wiping out populations. He was meeting humans where they are. That is supposedly a justification for the 10 commandments also(DO IT OR ELSE does not seem very christian). The pharisees would not have responded if Jesus just kindly asked them to stop (not sure how that justifies actions that would otherwise be sin?).

Apologetics are a bunch of nonsense, but some churches have put a tremendous amount of effort into TRYING to make them seem logical. They fail, but it is an impressive attempt considering the nonsensical nature of the subject :grin:

See what I mean? — I like sushi

I think so, and I do tend to over-react anytime it is implied that old art is better than new art :grimace:

As for explosions of “art” in the past (the renaissance) these come about, seemingly to me, due to a kind of pressure being released and I’m wondering if there is a lack of constraint then “art” will suffer. — I like sushi

This part is interesting to me. I have always thought explosions of art were a result of improved agriculture and governance (progress in these areas means more people have time to do art). But having never really thought about it, that is clearly an incomplete answer.

Can you describe the specifics of what you meant by "pressure being released"? That may help me to relate to the modern situation.

Basically is “entertainment” too widespread today, and if so does this mean it’s becoming diluted beyond any immediate repair? — I like sushi

Entertainment is an exponentially larger portion of the economy than ever before. But is it diluted? There is more art created now than at any point in history suggesting a possible dilution. However, there are more genres of art created now than at any point in history. And, within each genre there are more works released, from more artists, from more diverse backgrounds, than at any time in history. Also, with social media "art" can be created and shared by anyone anytime. But somehow all of this results in art being repetitive and stale?

Will comedians be driven into the ground by a stale and overly reactive audience? — I like sushi

Good example. Tremendous comedians filling huge auditoriums may fade during upsurges of political correctness. However, in today's world ANYONE can start a website and fill it with all the "offensive" humor they want. If it is actually funny, or they have a big enough audience of offenders, they can even make a living. It will be more difficult to be a multimillionaire comedian because there is more competition, and if anyone become really famous then EVERY somewhat offensive comment they make will cost them money. This MAY be a problem for society, but I don't see how it is a problem for art?

Perhaps you can provide examples of past art that is superior to today's. It would also be good if you could give a couple examples of the "huge leaps" that occurred in art in the past that are now absent.

I have read your post a few times now, and i am not sure I am actually addressing what you think is the problem? i get the sense I am focusing too much on the "art" portion?

Feel free to put me on track :smile:

He suggests that because we will never perceive any indication that our consciousness has ceased when we die, we will continue this final state of consciousness forever and that in this state, time will become infinite. — simmerdown

Probably a crazy tangent but this reminds me of the idea in physics that we can never see an object cross the event horizon. This ends up being wrong, but the illusion is created due to a misunderstood matter of perspective. Might the transition from consciousness to unconsciousness also naturally occur, but we don't understand how due to our limited perspective?

hmmmm, I can't tell if that is a clever association or just a bunch of BS. Philosophy right?

In any case, I have NOT been convinced that our final moments will last forever.

Here is a site I have used for years. Put a word into it...and you will get the word as defined in 10 - 30 different dictionaries.

https://www.onelook.com/ — Frank Apisa

Well that should be useful on this website :grin: Or just a starting off point for more debate, haha. In any case, a useful resource, thank you.

First, I think there are already a couple of good responses. I will just add a little in case you are a bit of a weirdo like me :wink:

I feel I can't justify what I feel about something in a few words as you do in a social interaction, like Id have to go home, think about it for a few hours then write something as my response for it to be a true reflection of me. — Aidan buk

Many of my posts here require multiple revisions (close to zero are written and sent in one go...I already noticed a typo that I will have to correct in this one :grimace:), so I think I can relate. Early in life, I started to watch others and just memorize the expected responses. Also, I have always been a people pleaser, so I noticed the answers that made people smile. Now, I rarely struggle in daily conversations as things like work and school have a structure to them; and I have experienced the vast majority of interactions before, so now I know what to expect, and additionally, I know which answers succeeded in the past (this is obviously more appropriate for "small talk" than a philosophical discussion, but most social interactions seem to be mostly "small talk").

To be fair, this all results in a somewhat disingenuous engagement with most people (I am still being genuinely me, just in a very limited sense). Once I get to know people (like years, or maybe if daily interactions occur, just several months), then I start showing more of myself and people are surprised to learn that I am not always a nice person. I think most people operate this way (presenting a limited version of themselves at first), I just spend more time thinking about it (overthinking might actually be THE problem).

Also, just as a comparison...when do you start to doubt what you said? For me it is usually hours later, and I think, wait why did I say that?!?! Is that how it works for you? Or are you aware during the conversation that you are just spewing crap (I just mean that relative to how you actually wished to represent yourself)? And one more, I almost never regret NOT saying things. Even if I look like an idiot to everyone else, if I am silent all night I will have no problems with that later. On the other hand, I have had nights where I am the center of attention (very rare), and by the end of the night my head was spinning from all the annoying shit I said.

Please, no more of these long drawn out responses to many different topics. Choose one comment and I'll deal with it...and then we can move on. This gets much too cumbersome this way. — Frank Apisa

OK. i just deleted a nice long one :grin: Not sure what to respond to if not EVERYTHING you say.

Put out your best argument. — Frank Apisa

Answer this question: Do you KNOW if there is a god?

Now answer this one: Do you THINK there is a god?

"I don't know" does NOT answer the second question. It is like answering "what is your favorite color?" with "42".

Notice if someone asked me "do you believe in "uhenthdfrteunty" I would answer, "I do not even know what that is, so of course I can't possibly believe in it. If you care to give me a definition of 'uhenthdfrteunty', then we can confirm my lack of belief or possibly find something I do believe in."

That pesky God sure works in mysterious ways. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

hehe, I was not trying to suggest that Christian theology is accurate or even logical.

As to Jesus dying for us. I do not think he would break the laws he said he came fulfill. Do you really want to make Jesus a moral monster? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

??? What did I say that suggested this? Notice that Jesus never actually committed sin (based on the fantastic teachings of the bible). He simply accepted the burden of sin that humanity had/has/will accumulate (please do not ask me to make sense of this - it just is, like god).

Do you agree that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral? Do you agree that to abdicate personal responsibility or use a scapegoat is immoral?

If not, please show how it is morally and legally good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty, bearing in mind that all legal systems think that punishing the guilty is what is justice. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think Christianity is a few basic moral principles dressed in a bunch of hogwash. You suddenly switched from asking "what do christians believe?" to "are christians justified in their beliefs?"

Do you agree that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

yep immoral. That being said, if I was given the opportunity to die, and in so doing, remove the suffering of all human beings so all are peaceful and happy (pure fantasy, but for the sake of argument), I HOPE I would choose to die. This does not suggest that innocents should die for others, just that we should admire the "innocents" that are willing to sacrifice their own well being for the good of others (one of those basic moral principles I was talking about).

Now, what can be the most essential for a poem?
Creativity or grammar? — Tarun

More essential has to be creativity (assuming the person is literate). A poem can be written entirely absent knowledge of "good" grammar. But without ANY creativity there is no poem to write.

Hmmm, that may be unfair. I have set the base for creativity at zero, while I assumed a literate level of grammar....I could have easily said "without ANY grammar there is no poem to write".

I still say creativity because poetry plays fast and loose with grammar rules (I get things like figures of speech, rhetorical devices, etc are not really rules). But I am not very confident :grin:

If Jesus was not a sinner, how could he have died? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I don't think this thread has much to do with this, but that question was floating around, and I didn't see the answer anywhere.

I am not christian, but went to a 7th day adventist college that required WAY too many christianity courses so I got you covered here. First off, you were half-way to the answer with one of your earlier statements:

the wages of sin is death. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jesus was crucified to die for humanity's sin. (everyone knows this) The part that is forgot is that Jesus takes on all of humanity's sin right before death (if he was without sin there would be no cause of his death). This is when Jesus says something along the lines of "why have you foresaken me?" as a divine being is suddenly thrust into a mortal body suffering the effects of sin, he is struggling and asks God for help. There is also mention of "god is saving something for Jesus in heaven", the best guess as to what is being saved is Jesus' divinity, which had to be sacrificed in order to take on sin.

Also, know that A LOT of the bible is just justifying that god does not lie (if the wage of death is sin, and Jesus is taking on humanity's sins, he MUST die or god is a liar).

In ordinary conversations with a person in real life we are able to see for ourselves what a person intends by their behavior, facial expressions, and other non-verbal cues; but, on the internet, we don't have access to this prominent feature of human interaction. — Wallows

Well easy for the socially adequate to say. I have never felt that people's behavior, facial, expressions, non-verbal cues, etc are anywhere near consistent enough for me to make predictions. If I know a person VERY well, I can know these things based on past experience. Otherwise, I struggle to have any idea what people are thinking/feeling. Fortunately, I am also inherently disinterested in these things.

I think the need to know WHO you are talking to, is part of the problem you are noticing. If I don't care if the person who posted is old, young, male, female, black, white, lgbtq, an alien, or a dog that can type; then ALL I can do is address the content of their post. Now obviously, me being further along the sociopath spectrum and possibly including a pinch of asperger's makes this natural for me, but I often wonder why, on a Philosophy Forum, there is such frequent dismissal of arguments because the person is young, old, female, christian, atheist, etc. I guess our brains can't help but take the shortcuts, and if we know a person is an old female, then we can make all sorts of "accurate" assumptions?

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. — Pattern-chaser

Unquestionably true, but I seem to enjoy whining about it anyway :grin:

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. — Pattern-chaser

I realize that authority was a problematic word in that case. What I meant by "more authority" was simply a type of tie breaker that allows the conversation to accept a definition and move on. However, you are right to point out that today's dictionary definitions may change with usage, so that is hardly a type of authority.

Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? — Pattern-chaser

Well notice that something like wikipedia would allow the language users themselves to be the ones to create and constantly update and modify the "dictionary". Consensus and evidence then determine what stays and what changes.

What has been gained? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Well, not much. Just the ability to feel superior knowing the "right" definition (and maybe a tiny bit of time savings). And as I am trying to rid myself of the need to feel superior (as much as my logical brain understands the emptiness of superiority, my emotional brain just loves it), it really is not much.

That helps...but is not authoritative. — Frank Apisa

Yes I am struggling with word choice (I feel like there must be a joke related to this statement considering the topic of this thread), I tried to soften my language a bit above. The wikipedia version of a dictionary does seem to answer a lot of the problems (it would give a type of "authority" for a person to reference, while leaving the authority in the hands of the language users themselves). But I am willing to admit, that doing that does not suddenly solve all of the problems mentioned in this thread, so not too important.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction. — Frank Apisa

So I think what you are saying is that no one can prove a negative? That is why the burden of proof is typically on those making a claim vs those denying it (I get that you are claiming to do neither). That being said, a lack of evidence can precisely be evidence.

Is there a monster under your bed?

First we need to define monster. First, it is bigger than a small pet. Could the monster be invisible, lack odor, make no noise etc - yes, seems reasonable. Can the monster be immaterial? No that is a spirit or ghost or apparition or something. Now given these qualifiers, we can "prove" there is no monster by a lack of evidence. If it cannot be seen, felt, smelled, or heard, then it is NOT there. Now obviously with gods, we have much more space to check than just under the bed, but a lack of evidence is still evidence in the direction of no gods.

Would you say it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of monsters under your bed?

What about the lock ness monster?

Could there have been humans in the past with super powers (real power, not a little smarter than average)?

Are Zeus and Poseidon equally likely (or unlikely) as the Christian god and is that god equally likely to any random definition of god? (notice that any random definition would include anything that could possibly be conceived of as a god, and therefor is MORE likely than the 2 previous examples by definition)

Again, we are not claiming certainty, just likelihood.

cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

We are not likely to agree here. A lack of evidence does exactly make something less likely than if there was evidence. Otherwise, what is the point of evidence?

I do not think you have ever addressed this bolded bit. If you can show me the error of that portion, maybe there is progress to be made.

I have a suspicion, however, that in fifty years, people will still be reading Hamlet and will be like "Michael who?" — NKBJ

I should just about live that long, so we will see :grin: I am actually more worried that in 50 years I will be defending the artistic merits of Transformers against some dumb youth who thinks his favorite YouTube personality eating a spoonful of cinnamon is the pinnacle of artistic achievement :roll: I would start to argue that Transformers is better, but would quickly have to conceded that I cannot support the argument. If they say it is art, it is.

I also still think that there's more to be learned philosophically in Hamlet than Transformers. — NKBJ

This is a point I have been trying to attack the whole thread. But nobody cares to describe a philosophical lesson from Shakespeare. I would say it is likely that philosophical points in Shakespeare are deeper or more nuanced than those of Transformers. However, when you use the word "learned", simple lessons are often the best for learning (and will stick with you the longest). I STILL have not learned ANYTHING from Plato's Allegory of the Cave. (It is possible that I already understood the main point when I first read it - but IF I didn't already know it, I still don't).

And I don't think most, even educated people, are able to come up with that stuff on their own. — NKBJ

And yet Shakespeare came up with it, absent inspiration from Shakespeare :grin: Sorry, bit jerk-ish, and doesn't help the discussion, but I can't resist.

The caliber of that philosophy will hinge on the philosophical abilities of the viewer in question. — Terrapin Station

VERY important point.

Somewhat relevant to our discussion, Justin Weinberg asked people to contribute links to philosophical visual art. The pieces and the comments on them are pretty interesting. — NKBJ

Thanks for those. When I read the title, all I could think of was "anything by MC Escher" and sure enough, one of those was on the list. But generally speaking I view art far too literally to actually get much philosophy out of it. Something like Zadig by Voltaire is so directly focused on philosophy that the points are fairly clear, but it is not much of a novel. However, paintings or sculptures are going to be far more difficult to use to communicate a philosophical message - unless the message is about perspective or some other philosophical concept that is also a direct component of the art itself.

Oh, and this article was nice too! — NKBJ

Ooof, that one is a bit more for the connoisseur. IF I enjoy the works of art they are discussing, THEN I will enjoy analyzing the philosophy in those works. There was one line that helped to prove a point I have been trying to make about "art" though:

"Moreover, the layers of meaning in the painting—intended and unintended"

Once we admit that art interpretation can (should?) go beyond the artist's intentions, we have given away any authority to say what ANY piece of art symbolizes (means, teaches, etc). THAT is why I am so confident that any lessons from Shakespeare can be matched by those in Transformers. I have spent WAY too much time helping students to assess meaning in some random story. This has given me the ability to find meaning and symbolism in almost anything. Once one determines a potential meaning for any piece of art, all they need is minimal justification (can't be completely made up) and they are "right".

And as if he knew the point I was going to make, Isaac provides support:

Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.

...was the response of one art critic to the random daubings of a chimpanzee which the journalist Åke Axelsson pretended were done by an upcoming modern artist. — Isaac

hahahahaha, that was good.

Dang, I thought I was going to get caught up today, but I think I have about a half-page of posts to go. I know this thread has been going for quite a while, just respond if you feel inspired, hehe.

You don't have to wonder weather a mistake of grammar actually exists or not. — StreetlightX

Whether or not you did this on purpose (I am assuming you did), I enjoyed it :grin:

You are confusing being agnostic with being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. — Maureen

@Frank Apisa I will include you too, as I was going to say this to you at some point.

Actually it seems (to me) that those who want to be just "agnostic" are confused. They are dealing with a different question than the rest of us. "Atheist" and "Theist" address the question "do you believe (think) there is a god?" The agnostics change the question to "is there a god?" Which is clearly a VERY different question. One is a question of knowledge, one of belief. "I don't know" is an answer to a knowledge question. The appropriate answer to "do you believe?" would be "I don't believe so" or "I don't think so", notice that makes you an atheist by definition.

Why are "agnostics" so opposed to being called "agnostic atheists"? Would "agnostic" or "atheist" even be used if religion wasn't such a dominant force in society?

As an "agnostic" do you really view your position as being right in the middle of Christian & Atheist? Because from my perspective, agnostic seems WAY closer to atheist than to Christianity.

That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life. — Frank Apisa

In fact, it exactly logically leads to that. When someone says "more likely" what are they comparing? If there is NO evidence it is CERTAINLY less likely than if there IS evidence....right? This makes no statement on how much more likely (could be 51% or 99%).

Notice that if we accept your logic here, then we must also accept that "finding evidence of god still says NOTHING about the likelihood of there actually being a god." And more problematic, "finding evidence of gravity, plate tectonics, evolution, etc says nothing about the likelihood of them being true".

We have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that any sentient life exists on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. None whatsoever. — Frank Apisa

Agreed. And assuming that "sentience" will result in technological development, we can be VERY CERTAIN (not 100%) that there are no technologically advanced civilizations existing in the 25 closest stars. Now there could be some self aware dolphins floating around somewhere, but nothing advanced enough to use a radio...based on the evidence (it is not 100% because we can't know for sure there is NOT some super advanced civilization that has zero use for radio waves - or other signs of technology we would recognize - but this seems quite unlikely). The lack of evidence of advanced civilizations does exactly tell us it is less likely (says nothing of how much less likely, but unquestionably less), vs actually finding evidence.

Sorry Mr. Apisa. I am barely through page one of this thread. I will try to catch up and get back on track where we left off in the last thread...but I am worried I am just going to say the same things you already get from the other atheists. Do not feel the need to respond to me if I have just repeated another person's point...I will catch up.

The thing I am attempting to communicate is that every individual I have ever met or know of...who uses the word "atheist" as part of a descriptor... — Frank Apisa

While I think we are partially on topic, I think most of our discussion will be better served in that newer agnosticism thread (title is something like "why people don't say I don't know").

I will try to read all of that one and get caught up before getting involved so you don't have to repeat yourself (too much, hehe).

General and specific; each can be worthwhile, yes? — Pattern-chaser

Definitely. This topic is interesting too, in that many people (all of us?) seem to have problems with some words being used generally, but are perfectly fine using other words generally. I think when I have a problem with words being used generally it is more because society has started using the word(s) flippantly to the point that they can have nearly opposite potential meanings ("conservative" and "liberal" are 2 words where I need more information to even begin to guess what they mean in any given context, and of course "literally" now generally means "figuratively"). If everyone gave dictionaries a bit more authority, it would solve a lot of problems - but even dictionaries change over time so it wouldn't solve everything.

Thank you for your lengthy response, ZhouBoTong. (Is there a shorter name I can use and still show respect?) — Frank Apisa

Sure, as far as I am concerned, you taking the time to respond is more than enough respect for me :smile: Zhou is fine, BoTong also works. ZBT is another common option, and since there are hardly any names starting with z, I am fine with Z too. As long as I know you are talking to me, it works.

Have you ever encountered any person who identify themselves using the word "atheist" who is totally uncertain of the existence of gods,,,and does not see the likelihood of "no gods" as being greater than the likelihood of "at least one?" — Frank Apisa

As soon as you say "totally uncertain" I do not think there are very many atheists that fit that. But what does "totally uncertain" mean? Is that realistic? Everyone can conceive of a god based on some basic definitions, therefor, as soon as someone is asked to think about it, they will have a minimal opinion at least. If you don't know what a god is, then you don't believe in one, so by definition that makes a person atheist (sorry when I use "you" I often mean "a person").

I apologize, I did not have enough time for this. This is a quick response, but I will try to give it a bit more thought.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

The only reason I would ever get offended is if the joke is not really funny (I have the Jerry Seinfeld sensibilities). The more potentially offensive a joke is, the funnier it needs to be in order to be justified. This copypasta is a good example. It is BARELY funny. So if 1 out of 100 people might take it seriously, it not even close to worth it. Notice what most people find funny is the idea that "this 51 year old lady is so dumb and out of touch that she actually thinks NAVY seals are on their way to kill her". So are we laughing at her for being stupid or fearing for her life? Either way, I think even the worst sitcom is funnier.

Uh oh, I might sound like an old person. Haha.

Invisible art — Isaac

That's hilarious. :rofl:
Somehow I don't think it'll be catching on in the long run. — NKBJ

That shampoo bottle is suddenly more inspirational than a whole gallery full of "art" :joke:

I meant, why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? If it's all subjective, they should be able to draw the same inspiration from the instructions on a shampoo bottle as they do Hamlet. — NKBJ

Ok. Well I think I am unqualified to answer. I struggle to emotionally relate to things. I have NEVER been inspired by art. I am not sure I have ever been inspired period (I have never create a work of art I care about). There are things I enjoy, and things I am interested in. If I enjoy something, or have an interest, I will pursue the endeavor.

So this might explain our ENTIRE disagreement. Notice I am not looking to art for inspiration. What I would say is more stories in a brain give the brain more information to draw on for creative purposes. So even absent inspiration, this would be a reason for viewing art in order to better create new art (I guess that could even be a type of inspiration?). But there are plenty of other reasons to enjoy art.

And all I would add in relation to the shampoo is that it is possible that SOMEONE is inspired by the shampoo bottle (those floral designs really brought the instructions to life - or some BS). Obviously, Hamlet is FAR more likely to inspire than shampoo. But compared to Transformers, Hamlet is BARELY more likely (depending on the student, it will often be LESS likely).

Well...if "atheist" means "one without a belief in any god"...that WOULD mean agnostics are atheists. But most agnostics I've known DO NOT want to be considered atheists. — Frank Apisa

and yet ask them to describe any god that they believe in...

Using that definition...agnostics would NOT be atheists. — Frank Apisa

Fair enough (I would probably have to learn Greek to debate the point), but using that definition, most atheists I know would NOT be atheists.

How should we classify the following belief?
There is no god that I believe in, but I don't know for sure.

"a person who believes or asserts that no gods exist." — Frank Apisa

The data seems hard to find, but what are the odds that a self identified atheist was involved in dictionary creation prior to very recently? I would guess it is close to 0%, as probably less than 1% of earth's population would have called themselves atheist? Might explain the poor definition?

People who use "atheist" as part of a personal descriptor either assert a 'belief' that no gods exist...OR that it is much more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists. — Frank Apisa

I don't like the hard no (I don't mind the hard no in relation to every god that has been defined as there is something to refute, but we don't know what we don't know), but I am fine with the second one. That still makes the person an agnostic atheist (don't know for sure).

(both of which are nothing but blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence) — Frank Apisa

How is, "I have never seen evidence of that" a blind guess? The theist is approaching the question from such a different place, that they seem incapable of understanding that plenty of us are just fine not knowing and not even feeling the need to guess. Why would I guess when I have nothing to base the guess on? Hence why many atheists try to explain their "belief" as "a lack of belief".

Agnostics do not do that.

Some people do identify as agnostic-atheists or atheist-agnostics...and do make those blind guesses. But they use the "atheist" qualifier BECAUSE of those guesses.

I attempt not to use a descriptor unless needed for commentary like this, but here is how I describe my agnosticism:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

So if someone asks "do you believe in a god?" does your head just explode because you can't even answer that question? That question is entirely binary. There is no 3rd option. Answering "I don't know" is identical to answering "no, but I am not sure". Surely you would know if there was a god you do believe in?

If the word is not ambiguous...why are there so many arguments about strong-atheism or weak-atheism...and why does that distinction come up so often in Internet discussions... — Frank Apisa

For the same reason that Catholics and Protestants have been killing each other for centuries. They are all "Christian", why the disagreement?

The only time the distinction between strong and weak seems to be made...is during these kinds of discussions. Meet someone in the real world who is an atheist...and that person will use "atheist." — Frank Apisa

I live in America, so I don't really tell people I am atheist until I know them. I try to avoid making other people uncomfortable and religious folk are uncomfortable with atheists. They DO like agnostics much better (in fact, I started calling myself atheist because religious people are far too inclusive of agnostics - they assume they are searching for god and just haven't found him yet - I needed to separate myself from that position, even if just in my own head).

Wonder what they mean. — Frank Apisa

But you don't wonder what they mean every time someone tells you they are "Christian"?

Do they believe in hell?

Is the sabbath Saturday or Sunday?

Do gay people go to heaven?

Should adulterers be stoned?

I could do about a hundred of these if we need more.

Whichever...they are asserting a blind guess...which their counterparts "theists" call 'beliefs.' — Frank Apisa

Despite everything I have said, I too have seen many atheists being "assertive". I typically argue with them too :grin:






.

The only philosophical concept I find consistently important is related to: "Are you sure?"

As long as the person can admit that they might be wrong, then they are less likely to cause major harms based on their belief.

Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this? — ssu

Ok, I think I finally understand what this thread is about (probably wrong though). I would just point out that I finished High School in 1999 and I still went through school during the "America is Perfect" days. Isn't the current environment where everything is phrased as "well what did America do wrong in this case?" just a backlash to the previous 50 years where America was only framed as "the God ordained force for good in the world"? I am not saying the current way is right, but it is likely necessary before we will find the correct "middle" position.

You’re here to entertain yourself too? — I like sushi

Haha yep, I can dress it up with "I am here to learn" or "to hone my own thoughts" but if I wasn't a little entertained, it probably wouldn't get much of my time :smile:

Learning is VERY rewarding and serious learning is SERIOUSLY rewarding. — I like sushi

I think I agree with this FAR more than most people I have met in life (but maybe a bit less than most of the people on this forum, haha). And that was a bit of my point, absent the brilliant entertainment that has been created in recent decades for the sole purpose of entertaining, serious learning (I keep using that word to separate learning physics, etc from learning how to play call of duty) can be quite rewarding and engaging. However, modern entertainment is built from scratch with human psychology in mind.

Like I said, I have felt engaged and entertained by a lot of learning in my life. It also seems clear, that the older I get, the more "interest" overrides "fun". But as I approach 40, I still have never felt the same joy or engagement from learning as I have had with specifically designed entertainment activities (sports, video games, movies, etc). I have never been so engaged in learning that I stayed up until 5 am. Much (definitely NOT all) of the "reward" of learning is attached to the idea that I have made myself a better person in some way. Where as video games is pure joy in the moment.

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way. — Frank Apisa

I thought atheist had an intentionally specific vague meaning...Isn't the main definition "one who does not believe in god or gods"? That captures a wide range of beliefs, (everything from agnostic to "I believe there is no god") but its meaning seems perfectly clear. Wouldn't "Christian" have the exact same problem? What about "Asian"? It just means "a person of Asian descent" or "relating to Asia". Notice there is then a wide range of possible items that fit that definition...but it doesn't make the definition meaningless.

I would actually say that most problems with the word "atheist" come from people assuming a more specific definition than the word actually entails. When I hear "Christian" I think of the whole range of Christianity, not just Catholics or Baptists.

Back to a more substantive aspect of art interpretation, why do you think we even need art if it's purely subjective? — NKBJ

I would say we don't need art, we like art. To be fair, I am sure there has been the occasional person who accomplished great things after being inspired by art, and, more commonly, people feel a "kindred spirit" through art that helps them to know that they are not the only one suffering. But these are bonuses to life, not necessities. Notice that learning to meditate (or many other activities) could also accomplish these things. Meditation is considered boring by most (including me) so it is not worth the effort, but this is just one example that suggests that art is not a necessity (but I still really want it).

Although one could make the "is life worth living without art" argument, most humans until recently have done just fine without it. However, now that many of us do not have to struggle to live, art has taken on a heightened importance as it serves to fend off boredom. But I would still struggle to call that a necessity, but, again, I still want it. The more I think about it, the more art seems like a crutch (for me personally). Without video games, movies, etc, only sports or intellectual endeavors can relieve boredom. While most of my life (so far) I would choose sports, the older I get the more I enjoy learning. Math is not very fun compared to most video games. However, it does present challenging puzzles that can engage my mind for a few hours. However, I almost never choose to do math because video games are much more rewarding and engaging (by design) - If video games are not "art" then tv, movies, books, etc would still be more entertaining than serious learning.

@praxis @T Clark

Well first, praxis, I was fairly amazed with your initial post. It seemed well thought out and very carefully worded. I liked it immediately. Then I thought, "wait which side of the argument would that post even fall under"? I read it a couple more times, and really thought it could go either way. Some of the words supported the post by @Pattern-chaser (who captured my thoughts in a more concise post), but some seemed to hint at something more. I am not asking you to take sides. I am just impressed that a post can contribute (quite a bit) to the conversation without actually making much of an argument...I will try to learn from that.

@T Clark and I were fairly opposed in certain aspects of this discussion, but I notice he also approved of your post:

It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it. — T Clark

I have some minor disagreement here, but I must recognize that this is as close as we will get to agreement (and should celebrate that praxis at least brought us closer than where we started).

He means "an interpretation of art" in the sense of "here's what this painting is about in my view." — Terrapin Station

That is what I meant. Sorry to both of you if I jumped in the middle of something I didn't understand.

However, I am not sure of the disagreement:

That does not seem to be an interpretation of art. At most, it is an interpretation of the definition of art.
— ZhouBoTong

In order to define art, you must interpret it. — NKBJ

How does my quote contradict that? And your statement seems to prove you WERE talking about "an interpretation of the definition of art" not an interpretation of any piece of art. I am probably overly concerned with grammar and semantics, I think I understand the spirit of what you are getting at.

That at least is the consensus of the art world. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't like the idea of consensus ever deciding what is right (it might give hints at best), but your line above highlights the "elitism" I was referring to. What is the "art world"? Is that "all art and everyone that enjoys it"? Or is it "a limited set of art works and those who study them"? If more people watched "Transformers" than viewed the Mona Lisa in 2014, does that make Transformers better? - despite this last bit proving my point, I still say consensus cannot possibly define good art.

I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark

This seems intelligent and well thought out, but does it really apply to candy? I agree that SOMETIMES a "matter of value" is not the same as "matter of preference", but I feel things like candy and art (by definition) have their value ascribed by those who consume it. Each consumer decides. What values are you considering that would make candy "good" or "bad"?

I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts. — T Clark

Agreed. The ability to communicate quickly and clearly is a necessary base. But if I was planning to teach someone to read, write, and speak, when does Shakespeare come in? Shakespeare is for those who have already mastered these skills AND enjoy his writing/stories.

Similarly, if I was teaching someone to read/write/speak I would NEVER tell them to come this website (or likely any philosophy site). Few of us here even agree on basic definitions of words (and yet I assume we all communicate fine in our daily lives). What hope would someone with rudimentary language skills have?