I had horrible social anxiety until I was about twenty. I recall having to give a short introductory presentation to my grade 9 english class (everyone did) and nearly passing out at the front. I think having the hyper-analytical mind only exacerbates the problem.

For the social anxiety, I took martial arts, which removed a lot of my anxiety about physical contact and gave me a lot more confidence. For the hyper-analytical mind, I think you need to work towards developing a "functional public persona". You can develop new mental habits of NOT overthinking, contextual awareness I guess you'd say. Like being at work. You discipline yourself to really limit your responses to what is appropriate to the context. Learning to accurately assess a context is actually quite a valuable skill. Initially, 'don't overanalyze' is probably good enough!

My interest and whatever knowledge I have of that subject specifically starts with Durkheim and anomie.

I personally have never seen or read anything that contested the suicide rate data, and it is a subject that has received a lot of attention, since it was so central for Durkheim.

Durkheim's "anomie" hypothesis, that a dramatic climb in the suicide rates towards the end of the 19th century was related to a disconnection of individuals from traditional standards and a breakdown of traditional values, has been borne out in some 20th century studies, ie. among Catholics vs. Non-Catholics. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/228544

Sure. It just doesn't have anything to do with atheism versus agnosticism, etc. — Terrapin Station

No, it has to do with what constitutes evidence for the existence of God, which is the more fundamental question, certainly to the position of atheism (a la Dan Dennett's argument, for example).

I've elaborated the same argument 3 times now, that's all I can muster for this thread....cheers! :)

As I said to Mr. Terrapin, anyone claiming to see snafboggles pretty clearly doesn't require refutation, he refutes himself quite effectively with the claim. People who do good deeds in the name of the belief in a god, well that really isn't obviously contradictory in any way. In fact, it makes some sense.

Of course, I just don't have a name for the many, many things that I don't believe in. Or espouse my non-belief in them as a significant position.

Again, do you have a lack of belief in unicorns? Or Santa Claus? The position of weak atheism makes even less sense than strong atheism. At least strong atheism is a self-consistent prejudice.

Unless by weak atheism you mean agnosticism....

Yes and atheism assumes there is no evidence for God. Which is what seems to be at issue now.

Actually, I would argue we are talking about what constitutes evidence for the existence of God. Which is what I described.

As I tried to say, if someone says, "I like digging holes because the view is so great from down there," then the statement reveals its absurdity. But maybe the person is speaking metaphorically. Maybe he or she really does get a better view, introspectively speaking , from the bottom of a hole. This would be my take on what I would consider to be "credible" theistic claims. Pragmatically speaking, I could accept theism insofar as it endorses moral guidelines that are enacted in actual behaviours. Such a theism would be credible and, if the guidelines were followed, genuine. Pragmatically speaking, any unverifiable 'metaphysical' elements simply don't matter. Pragmatically speaking.

Yes but the claim of atheism is analogous to saying "a round square doesn't exist". Everything that doesn't exist because it is 'counter-logical' fits into that category, a very large category indeed. It is begging one very specific question. It exists for one reason and one reason only and that is to contradict theism. Which is simply a poor motive in my estimation. If theism is indeed empty then it is its own best disclaimer.

Hoping that anyone with a thousand posts to their name will eventually find their way back....whatever differences of opinion we may have we are all united by a common love and respect for this thing we call philosophy. We are only richer for your contribution.

:up:

Yes, where internal religion (spirituality) meets religion qua institution.

Institutions invariably seem to drift tragically away from the criteria of their own foundations, don't they?

Don't get me wrong. I respect faith. One cannot know everything and sometimes one is forced to enact values that possibly can't be justified in any other way. As long as one's enacted values match one's espoused values I feel that faith can be perfectly coherent in some cases.

If anything agnosticism is far more sensible than atheism. If something doesn't exist why bother taking a philosophical stance on it? Atheism as an argument is really anti-theism, isn't it.

I would have voted agnostic had the choice been offered. I am open to either possibility, in the absence of conclusive evidence either way.
edit: didn't even check the end of the thread, I see ssu has similar ideas.

I feel that Descartes here goes against your argument. He would see us as the masters and possessors of nature rather than its shepherds and protectors. — Mark Dennis

Actually I agree, but I think that particular perspective results from him being a product of his age. Which just goes to show how different fields of knowledge all have to advance in concert. The whole concept of "ecology" doesn't really become evident until you overpopulate and overindustrialize the world!

Not sure what you mean by "criteria for explanations"?

The fundamental forces of physics are gravitation, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force. Chemical properties abound. Flammability isn't explicable by any of the fundamental forces of physics. However the fundamental forces of physics can account for the formation of new macroscopic systems (gas clouds, stars, planetary bodies). These new environments, to the extent that they are stable, create the conditions of possibility for novel formations which exhibit novel properties giving rise to new rules.

The subjective world of the self is a property of brains. It's not something different than brains that is generated for some purpose. It's what brains are like/it's simply qualities brains have. It's what those materials, in those structures, undergoing those processes, are like. It's not something separate from that. — Terrapin Station

True. Chemical properties are "properties" of physical systems, however chemical properties are not explicable in terms of the laws of physics. Rather they are a new set of "rules" which emerge as a result of the formation of a complex-stable physical system creating a fundamentally new type of context. Likewise for other superordinate systems, biological, psychological, etc. Different systems can be connected without one necessarily being reducible to the other.

A human is capable of great sacrifice, yet is often selfish. Great kindness, but is frequently cruel. A human is both stubbornly good and stubbornly bad.

:up:

Agree with your assessment of the first premise. Assumes the answer, it also assumes we are at an end point in our understanding of our universe or even what universes with the slight variations of physical constraints would look like either. — Mark Dennis

Wholeheartedly agree with this characterization. What we do know is that complex systems can and do achieve various stable states. If we don't even know what all the variables are, we really can't assume there is anything particularly unique about this specific one.

I'm not necessarily that concerned with the political arguments viz pro-choice/pro-life there. I'm interested in shedding light on the practical implications of human actions. And the fact that seemingly human's act irrationally without complete awareness of them doing so... — 3017amen

Hmm. The whole "requires time" premise seems to me a red-herring based on an exclusive definition of synchrony vs diachrony. A thing can cognitively be "in time" without necessarily "taking time." As a simple example, painting a picture takes time (diachronic) but the complete picture can be observed "all at once" (synchronic).

Most interesting to me is your last observation that people act irrationally without awareness of doing so. This reminds me of the age old question, why do people choose bad instead of good when, ex hypothesi, bad is harmful and good is beneficial. People must somehow think that they are acting rationally even though they are acting irrationally. Bad faith?

Yes, I assumed that the significant case falls into the modal categories described. The only case for "broad pessimism" I can think of is this: There is a strong chance that it will rain tonight, but the pessimist waters his garden anyway. Kind of silly, but the only kind of case that I can construct where pessimism leads to action.

To me, adaptive pragmatism demands evaluating what you should and shouldn’t be pessimistic or optimistic about. I can be optimistic about my ability to act to make better a pessimistic view of the future. As opposed to being irrationally optimistic about the future despite all the evidence of why you shouldn’t be optimistic about it. Our outlooks aren’t always uniform for every single thing. — Mark Dennis

I think this is the key. What we are really talking about here is optimism vs. pessimism in the case of serious and complex situations with lots of unknowns. In that context, to me, optimism takes the form of believing that "we can make a difference" not just that "the best result will ensue" (a la Leibniz). Pessimism that "there is nothing we can do".

As in a perfect system adaptively changes, yes, I see.

Many systems are deeply complex and fluctuate a lot — I like sushi

Is this really true though? A defining characteristic of a complex system is that it tends to transition rapidly (tipping points) from one stable state to another stable state.

I think the fitness of something to a purpose is a really good way to conceptualize perfection.

I like the idea as perfection as "fitness for" also. It works with a process philosophy.

Like the 'strange attractor' towards which a dynamic system tends to evolve? Yes, I hadn't thought of that. — Chris Hughes

And linking to abiogenesis - I just read about an experiment in constructing simple cells from inorganic elements. The idea was to create a solution containing 90 elements necessary for a very simple cell, along with lipids to create the necessary cell membrane. Stochastically/statistically, it was completely improbable (impossible) that any containers would form containing all 90 elements. Nevertheless, they did form. What happened was that some containers formed with zero elements, while others formed with the requisite 90 elements. This can be explained if there is an attractor governing (representing?) a stable system state corresponding to the existence of the "cells". i.e. the elements have an "affinity" for one another in some complex, but measurable/calculable sense. Overriding stochastic behaviour.

That'd be for you to decide. Systems theory alters the boundaries of what we think of as 'conscious'.

I’d love maths and science to have an explanation for everything; but perhaps some things are ineffable. Perhaps maths, for all its fundamental beauty, is the scaffolding rather than the building. — Chris Hughes

Actually non-linear dynamics goes a long way beyond what standard calculus and probability can do. It's worth a look if you like math, especially when applied to highly complex and living systems.

Optimism and pessimism are both inherently goal-directed, i.e. they both inherently transcend the existing context towards some future state of affairs. One is optimistic that things can be improved; one is pessimistic that things cannot be improved. Therefore both optimism and pessimism natively move towards some future state of affairs. Since optimism is melioristic (things can be improved) I opt for optimism, always. Either way, the fundamental orientation (choice) is sufficient to address the opening question as is.

I see that you are taking liberties with the unambiguous concept of pessimism. If you want to create some ad hoc, doctored up definition of some emotive/motive state that is fine, just don't call it pessimism. It derives from the latin meaning "the worst." An optimist actively looks for the best, a pessimist actively looks for the worst. Those definitions are adequate and complete in and of themselves. As to why people are pessimistic, that indeed may be up for grabs, but the simple fact of "being pessimistic" is what it is. You are conflating the causes and the results of pessimism with the state of being pessimistic.

Alright, Sir Righteous. Seems you know exactly what you're talking about. /s — Swan

A little too uncompromising was I? Maybe so. I think I am just losing patience with philosophizing by way of equivocation. Start with a premise X, then start arguing as though X means Y. Pessimism is not a "broad" term. It literally means, 'tending to see the worst.' The normative denotation is already built in to the term and it is negative. So optimism vs. pessimism? Easy choice.

Agree one hundred percent. Unfortunately, when it comes to behaving according to a standard of reasonableness, most people tend to feel they do, imputing defects to the other side when friction (inevitably) arises. Pretty much what Descartes says in "Discourse on Method":

“Common sense is the most fairly distributed thing in the world: because everyone thinks he is so well endowed, that even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, have no habit of desiring more than they have. What it is unlikely that all are wrong, but this shows that the power of judging well and distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is properly what is called common sense or reason, is naturally equal in all men, and as well as the diversity of our opinions does not come from what some are more reasonable than others, but only that we conduct our thoughts in various ways, and do not see the same things . For it is not enough to have a good mind, but the key is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as the greatest virtues..."

What if optimism tells us, "hey, God will save us all, don't worry, we are made in his image, just forget it." — god must be atheist

If the difference between success and failure is a healthy attitude then perhaps that is enough. We are speaking in generalities, after all.

Pessimism just means preparation in short. Optimism prohibits, if not severely reduces being prepared. How does "optimism" prepare or equipped you for the realism of dire situations? It is a false hope. — Swan

Optimism is not gambling, it is a fundamental attitude that underlies a perspective in which one is positively motivated. Likewise, pessimism is not caution or care, it is a fundamentally negative attitude, an orientation.

I would never presume to argue with someone who feels pessimism is more productive than optimism. I think the juxtaposition of the two terms speaks for itself. I know if I had to choose between being stuck in a situation with a pessimist or an optimist which I would prefer.