There can only be a serious argument for the permanence of the soul, if the soul is thought to be energy itself. — boagie

:up:

edit: For example, you could argue that knowledge represents a form of energy. Then the process of coming into being of knowledge-being in an organic entity could be akin to the igniting of a fire in a combustible material. Then that selfsame fire, when the original pile of material is consumed, can be used to ignite something else, even a completely different phase of matter, like a gas. So, analogously, this soul or what I would characterize as thought-being can move through material phases, although being essentially energy. Something like that.

:lol:

↪Pantagruel Is there something else behind 'honest'? without it, 'honest' doesn't exist. — YiRu Li

Honesty implies truth. Your choice whether or not to tell the truth is always your choice.

As others have asked, how are you defining "mindset" ?

For example, you are (we assume) being honest in your questioning. But your terminology is unclear. Does this reflect a lack of honesty in your mindset?

Can honesty be considered a culmination of a particular mindset? Is it contingent upon possessing this mindset, implying that without it, genuine honesty is unattainable? — YiRu Li

Are you asking whether this is a fundamental property, that one either is or is not honest?

From my perspective, honesty is the prerequisite for accurate communication, which is the foundation of cooperative social activity. So in addition to being intrinsically or inherently desirable, honesty is also selected for pragmatically.

Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter
by Terrence W. Deacon

Necronomicon: The Best Weird Tales
by H.P. Lovecraft

If transcendentalism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, and if materialism gets a person to see the ethical then that's the belief for them, but it's the ethical that matters and is what I would base my preference on. — Moliere

:up:

Just to be sure, this is how you're defining "spirit"? As a connotation of certain actions over time? Or as the source of those actions — AmadeusD

No, that is just my best effort at a pragmatic ethics consistent with a healthy humanized spirituality. I don't think I need to be able to understand or define the nature of spirit minutely in order to be aligned with the overall process of spiritualization I grasp as the inherent positive energizing force of the cosmos.

Possibly there is no one underlying big plan. But human plans are constantly coming into being and altering the universe in significant ways. And if there can be plans of human scope, there can be plans of other scopes as well. It's kind of unlikely that humanity is the best possible mirror of the universe in the universe.

Can you be sure you're not just referencing inter-generational awareness? — AmadeusD

I assume that there is something like a collective consciousness happening at some material level to be sure.

In that sense, how would you define it in practice? — AmadeusD

I think that is the key is that it is defined by practices, practices which are in concert with the most enlightened goals of humanity. I'm reading all about the history of Chinese philosophies right now, and the central theme emerging from Confucianism is that of becoming a spiritual being. Confucius very much melded humanism and transcendentalism; he felt that human actions could enrich and express the tao.

So I would hope right actions would be very much "socially self-reinforcing." I try to act in accordance with this view, through volunteerism and kind acts.

To think that a person cannot feel awe and mystery about life and the universe just because they don't accept religious views and other collective belief systems, is just not true. — Christoffer

I was careful to explain it isn't religion per se I support, but the transcendental attitude.

Adding to that, a belief system that replaces religion, such as the belief in material and materialistic values to bring meaning is also producing mob mentalities and deindividuation. — Christoffer

:100:

Outside of those semantics, what you are arguing is rather that the materialistic society we live in is lacking meaning and means for morality to form on the grounds of people's actual value as human beings and instead has been replaced by a dollar value. — Christoffer

That is definitely a descriptive version of my perspective. My feeling is that there are fundamental aspects of humanity that it is difficult for people to perceive, especially when it comes to themselves. The mystery of consciousness, really, that we can be so close and yet so far from the essence of what we are. I'm not promoting specific ideals. What I'm suggesting is that there is an inherent mystery to life which science hasn't come close to excavating. If anything, the light of science is illuminating depths and expanses far beyond our wildest dreams. But at some point the institution started to exist for its own sake (as institutions will do) and for some reason decided to react against this mystery, instead of embracing it.

It's like you argue that nihilism is the only realm of thought for materialists? — Christoffer

Yes, I'm kind of leaning that way. My sense is that embracing the larger (than self) reality is tantamount to the recognition of (self) transcendent values. As I mentioned, material calculations are all well and good, except where they are plainly insufficient. We think just because we have assigned a dollar value to everything via economics, everything hence becomes computable. When, in fact, our valuations are arbitrary and often misguided.

What is laissez-fair materialism? I was saying that many secular humanists are progressives and believe in helping to make a better world for future generations. — Tom Storm

Well, there are stated agendas, and there is deep psychological commitment. Politicians seldom come out in favour of elitism and favouritism, but still manage to be guilty of it often enough. I don't believe secular humanism necessitates or implies the wholesale abandonment of transcendental values.

As far as examples, it's the direction that our world is heading. I don't see examples so much as a ubiquitous problem. Murder in the name of God. Replacing vital human interaction with depersonalized electronic interchanges. Desertification of our habitat. Increasing inequality.

I'd say physicalists tend to hold utopian visions of a better future for their descendants. — Tom Storm

I'm not sure if utopianism is synonymous with laissez-faire materialism though. The belief in "progress" that says things are always getting better. When that is getting less true every day.

I think there is a cult of individuality happening too, which has hurt the type of collective-social (familial) beneficial motivations that you mention. Certainly nothing that robust universal education couldn't help.

It's curious to me that there are people who think nothing matters if there is no transcendental realm. I don't think I have ever met a materialist/physicalist/naturalist holding that position. — Tom Storm

Anyone who believes that personal responsibility transcends the limits of material life perhaps is not fundamentally a materialist then. :wink:

I think you may need to separate the word 'materialism' as in consumer capitalism from 'materialism' as in non-transcendence. They are not necessarily connected. — Tom Storm

I do think there is correlation happing here too though. I think that something like what Durkheim calls anomie is a product of the wholesale acceptance of a lot of materialistic (choose your sense) propaganda. Hopefully an newly enlightened social consciousness is awakening, in the collective-ecological spirit championed by many indigenous groups. The world needs some kind of fundamental change, because every indication is that we have been on a collision course with disaster since industrialization. Technologies which should have bolstered equality have increased the gap between the rich and the poor. Something is fundamentally wrong.

:up:

but about not having an absolute conviction that corporeal death is an end to all conceivable suffering — javra

:chin:

Most likely I’d trust the person who makes no appeals to unknown worlds or powers and takes seriously the status of an ongoing physical world. Perhaps this comes from hours spent arguing with Christians who say climate change either isn’t real or doesn’t matter because God has it all under control. Generally the people who you have described as ‘when you’re dead, you’re gone’ hold a concomitant belief - ‘this is the only world there is so we must take care of it.’ But no doubt there are outliers in all camps. — Tom Storm

I didn't really suggest it was an appeal. Rather, an underlying factor or condition for evaluating an inherent quality of human motivation. Perhaps it is an exaggeration. Perhaps not. But I think what you are describing is counter-intuitive. I see a lot of materialism consuming, polluting, and destroying. I don't see a lot of "materialist conservation." I do see a lot of spiritually motivated conservation efforts, people who are aware of the significance of the health of natural systems in a cosmic sense.

China has the largest buddhist population in the world, but this doesn’t seem to have prevented them from also being the world’s highest emitter of carbon, surpassing the U.S. So much for ongoing responsibility for deeds. — Joshs

I'm thinking more of the propagation of values at and through the level of individual interaction. The translation of that core credibility into the social arena is another issue. Western politics is rife with examples of individuals feigning alignment with communities of transcendental values only to promote their own basest interests.

I can imagine a Transcendentalist who doesn't care about the future because we reap our benefits in heaven, and a materialist who does because they realize that those are their family members and they are committed to family. — Moliere

Yes, there are nuances and flavours, but I do believe the essence of the reasoning holds. I agree, if you see your offspring as a continuation. I'd argue that is a form of transcendentalism. I think the only form of transcendentalism that would be responsibility-immune would be some kind of crazy-Calvinistic notion that salvation is pre-ordained. If you keep it simple, to the belief in an "ongoing," it is hard to escape the burdens and benefits of accepting full responsibility for the ultimate consequences of your behaviours.

touche

As I said, it was a sidebar on a second thread, in which I referred in the same way to a third thread. Anyway...

"I am sorry for having disturbed your (dogmatic?) slumber. I will let you get back to your ideas now."
~The World

That was a reply to some observations made by some other people. It was contextually relevant to their posts and alluded to an interaction on another thread, which isn't uncommon. And yes, I concur with 180 Proof that there isn't any reason to doubt the existence of the world - certainly not more than there would be to doubt your own reasons for doubting it, at any rate.

That clear things up?

No one would agree with you — Corvus

So far you are the only one I hear. As far as I can see, I am bang on topic. It isn't like it's some abstruse tangent. It's literally the title of your post. If you want to dispute the reasoning, fine. If the thought of what I said upset you, I am sorry. It wasn't intended to be rude in any way.

edit. I see this has gone down before. At which time you said you weren't responsible for making someone leave the discussion. Funny how your attitude changes when it is "your" discussion.



Given this, there is no way that you will be able to understand Austin. You've just got the perception stuff far too embedded in your thinking. It's a bit sad that you have been so mislead, but them's the breaks.

You do know that the world continues while you sleep. Right up until you try to do philosophy.

So I might leave this conversation there.
— Banno

There is a difference between having no logical ground of believing in the existence of X, and the actual existence of X. Please think about it carefully again. Leaving is fine. It just confirms you ran out of the ideas for the arguments. What can anyone do about it?

How is anything I said emotional?

Like I said, you are never not perceiving the world. If your mind is operating, it is "in touch with the world". The fact that I don't see it when I close my eyes does not surprise me, nor should it. Just because you don't continuously see "exactly the same set of things" doesn't mean that "the world" has in anyway ceased to exist or become dubious. You are just continuing to perceive it in a different way.

Not sure if this poster has read even single book on Philosophy in his whole life. Sounds like just making random statements on nothing. — Corvus

Because I said you are never not perceiving the world?

I agree. We are trying to see the arguments either to prove, disprove or the question is illogical itself. The conclusions will only be evident from good arguments. But still I felt bringing experience to the argument sounded too solipsistic.

And the main topic OP is not to prove the existence of the World. But trying to see the arguments for believing in the existence of the world when not perceiving it. — Corvus

Think about what this says. "Prove that there is a world". Whatever doubts exist with respect to the existence of the world likewise exist with respect to any proofs which you might append to that. As to believing in the world when not perceiving it, you are always perceiving something. So just because you don't continue to see the back of something when you move to the front is no warrant to believe the back disappeared. If you are completely unconscious, having no cognitions of any kind, it is just as likely that you have ceased to exist as has the world. In fact, the former seems more likely.

there aren't any compelling grounds to doubt the existence of world. — 180 Proof

Just so.

Frankly this thread is a manifestation of ↪Ciceronianus's question concerning affectation. — Banno

That's funny. I said the same thing with respect to the thread on empirical normativity. Which goes to show you that consensus forms an integral component of cognition.

If your claim is that here is an implicit ought in (1) then you seem also to be reiterating objection 2 from the article. Yes, you ought to keep your promises - that's a fact about what a promise is - and a mere tautology. — Banno

That is the whole point about promising. It is a voluntary binding of the is and the ought. It isn't trivial. It is the voluntary human enaction which bridges the is-ought gap. Not language. The entire concept of normativity is not just to identify, but to actualize. You can derive completely different oughts from virtually identical is statements just by the addition of one statement.

Tom sees a child about to be hit by a bus.
Tom has only one day left to live.
Tom ought to push the child out of the way, sacrificing himself.

Tom sees a child about to be hit by a bus.
Tom has only one day left to live.
The child just contracted a deadly new form of avian flu that will decimate the population.
Tom ought to let the child die.

The linguistic argument assumes that conditions can be exhaustively elaborated, which is misleading. Even when they can the statements apparently logically entail, it isn't linguistic, it is just a fact of historical consensus about fundamental behaviours. Yes, "promise" implies a binding of behaviour to language. That doesn't mean that language entails behaviour. It doesn't.

I know meditation has been proven to be useful, but nirvana/moksha isn’t that. You can meditate all your life and still never reach nirvana. A lot of people seem to conflate beneficial religious practices with the goals of religions / way of life — Sirius

And this is why it is all about your expectations and your goals. Whether those are conformant or consistent with the goals of the community of practice can only be decided by you. In general, advanced spiritual training usually involves the active setting aside of personal preferences as one inherent aspect of the practice. It doesn't sound like that meshes with your goals.

My point is, are you asking because the tradition appeals to you, but you find it too challenging? Or because you are seeking an alternative? Or is this merely a criticism? You say "what is more terrible". This suggests to me that you have a negative disposition towards the types of practices associated with the pursuit of moksha. In which case, this particular goal isn't for you. It isn't terrible, it simply isn't for you. Why do you feel compelled to defend your choice not to pursue this particular type of goal? For some people it isn't terrible at all. Brain scans of meditating buddhist monks have demonstrated there are remarkable things going on in their minds.

Do you think that the answer to this question is (or should be) the same for everyone?

Even if this is so, the issue is that the fact of the utterance implies the obligation. — Banno

The fact of the obligation implies the obligation, not the utterance. The utterance is secondary. The real statement of facts is:

Jones borrowed five dollars from Smith.
Jones ought to pay Smith five dollars.

The verbalizations memorialize the normative force, they don't create it.

Determinism is true. So folk cannot be responsible for their criminal actions. Thus, we ought not punish folk for their criminal actions. — Richard B

We punish people for their actions. Ergo determinism is false.

I think this is mistaken. My hunch is that a satisfactory accounting of intentionality will include an explanation of the way perspective and semiotic elements of reality are "baked in" from the outset. Scott Mueller's "Asymmetry: The Foundation of Information," and Carlo Rovelli's "Helgoland," have some interesting points on this front. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I just grabbed the Kindle of Incomplete Nature, it looks excellent. Unfortunately the Mueller books is $$$! Maybe there is a PDF floating around....

Correct. If I promise to do something it presupposes I have decided already that is the right thing to do. The only way to make it an is would be to disconnect it from the agent. But you can't do that proactively. You can say, Jones owed Smith five dollars. You can say Jones paid smith five dollars. Those are factual statements. Saying "Jones uttered the words" however is just a sneaky way of trying to make an already normative statement "factual".

Doesn't the fact that Jones makes a verbal promise to pay suggest that the normative force precedes the statement, rather than being derived from it?

According to a prominent line of thought, the notion of correctness involved in the seemingly platitudinous claim that meaningful expressions have conditions of correct application is intrinsically normative. — Sirius

Hmm. Saying that a meaningful expression inherently contains its own context of correct application is "normative" is not the same kind of normativity which applies to behaviour, at least not trivially so. A meaningful expression could "rightfully" be interpreted to mean "this man must be executed," but the agent is still free to disregard this claim. The disregarding would be an example of real normativity overriding this "semantic normativity". Which doesn't seem normative to me at all in any kind of significant or "meaningful" way.....

There is another thread on when philosophy becomes affectation. This makes me think of that.