:100: :fire:Just for the record, the art of mass manipulation was brought to modern form by Edward Bernays (November 22, 1891 − March 9, 1995) considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as "the father of public relations".
[ ... ]
Walter Lippman was Bernays' unacknowledged American mentor and Lippman's work The Phantom Public greatly influenced the ideas expressed in Propaganda a year later. — BC
:clap: :sweat: As an original Trekkie myself, I can't argue with you there, Athena. LLAP (n o t MAGA :mask:)If you were to watch old TV shows you might notice cultural differences between the 1950's and the present. The original Star Trek TV shows contrasted with the Next Generation Star Trek TV shows is an excellent example of what the change in education did to our culture. Captain Kirk is the John Wayne of outer space and Picard is the "Group Think" generation. — Athena
:up: Mostly, yeah, especially since the 1980s.Without irony I say - I think it's simpler here in the US - the Republicans did it. — T Clark
To my mind, 'the administrative state' beginning in the 1930s had postponed for almost cenrury this US collapse we're currently living through. During the last 80-odd years, women and minorities have been substantively enfranchised, business cycles have been extended and flattened due to effective regulations the public-private synergy of which has produced both unprecedented national prosperity and fewer boom & bust crises than before the 1929 Crash, far more and effective social welfare policies have been enacted, etc etc. The problem was not, IMO, the "German model of bureaucracy" itself but rather the postwar (i.e. "Cold War military industrial complex") use of "the German model" to perpetuate the American (internally contradictory) model of political democracy and economic anti-democracy – a laissez-faire settlers' slave republic – that had been established by anti-monarchal plutocrats in 1789.And this is made possible by adopting the German model of bureaucracy. Before Hoover and Roosevelt worked together to give us Big Government, the US government was relatively weak. — Athena
Not at all. I'm suggesting that it's not the merely symptomatic 'degradation of values' in our lifetimes but instead it's the congenital defect of the decadent values of the Founding generation – patriarchal plutocratic slavers – of the late-18th century America who'd been the architects of 'this house' which have contributed more than any other factor to the current, status quo collapse (and populist reactions to it).Are you saying it is not values that lead to shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair, and entropy?
Well, I'm not nearly as nostalgiac as you seem to be, Athena, for a past 'Golden Era' which history ubiquitously demonstrates never was and, I suspect as long as civilization is scarcity-driven, never will be.I remember the older people who all about honesty and human dignity.
In a sentence or two, what's your objection?I just wanted feedback on my objection to mysterianism. — RogueAI
Regarding the US, our political democracy without economic democracy is a democracy-in-name-only (DINO) which, from periodic national crisis to crisis, has been dismantling itself brick by brick since 1789 by disproportionately serving Capital at the expense of Labor and Nature (both of which are in revolt: reactionary populisms and global warming, respectively). A house doesn't collapse because of its occupants' "values" but mostly from a combination of shoddy construction, prolonged disrepair and entropy. Likewise, "our institutions are failing" because the macro structural imbalances, of which they are functions, are imploding as the ramifications of those imbalances accelerate.[W]e are destroying our democracy as all our institutions are failing. — Athena
:100:I worry for my children. We know from history the world sometimes does go to hell. — T Clark
Clarify what you mean by "understood".1) Can objects be understood without reference to human subjectivity? — schopenhauer1
"The human aspect" can be deflated (e.g. mathematics, natural sciences).2) Is it even wise to try to overlook the human aspect to all knowledge?
Speculative Realists seem to be attempting a more complete and consistent application of the Mediocrity Principle (i.e. anthropo-decentricity) – neither a 'view from being there' nor a 'view from nowhere', but a view from everywhere – in ontology.Is this not only a fool's errand but somehow anti-human or is this just trying to take out a pernicious anthropomorphism that might lead to a more open field of exploration?
Like taking candy from a baby. :yum: :up:Also, when you say it won’t be Joe Biden as the nominee — care to bet on that too? — Mikie
Any idea how "idealism" can be used to solve "the hard problem"? Do share, Rogue.In fact, I think idealism is the obvious solution. — RogueAI
By 'nihilism' I understand the belief that nothing human (i.e. mortal, finite, caused, contingent, imperfect) is meaningful or significant or real. Thus, I interpret 'supernatural religions' (e.g. Abrahamic, Vedic, pantheonic, shamanic, animist, ancestral, divine rightist, paranormal, ... cults) as manifest 'nihilisms' which, as Freddy points out, devalue this worldly life by projecing – idealizing (i.e. idolizing, disembodying) – 'infinite meaning, significance & reality' as originating with and/or only belonging to some purported 'eternal otherworldly life'. :sparkle: :eyes: :roll:What is nihilism? It is variously expressed as the idea that nothing is real, or that nothing has any real meaning. — Wayfarer
Sure, at best, but not sound.Does theism as a philosophical position, act as a valid support for religious doctrine? — universeness
No, "just us"; specifically: only human brains cannot scientifically explain human consciousness. IMO, ChatGPT is a toy compared to the AGI that's coming, which I suspect will be exceedingly capable of comprehending human consciousness far in excess of however much we can or cannot comprehend ourselves. Perhaps AGI will even explain us to us in a way we can understand. Btw, I'm in no way a 'mysterian'.Does mysterianism entail that all brains in the universe cannot understand consciousness, or just us? — RogueAI
Maybe. I think it's more likely, however, that a "religious philosopher" is an apologetic critic of naturalism, irreligion and/or religions (or sects) other than her own.So, is a persons claim that they are a religious philosopher, the inevitable beginning of losing/rationalising away, their [own] religion? — universeness
:up: Yes, of course, beginning with internal critiques of 'mythologies, theologies & ideologies' – including and especially one's own (re: "Gnothi seauton").Against the common view that philosophy is a two-thousand-year-old failing enterprise, a body of thought that has produced no knowledge, couldn’t we say that philosophy has in fact done pretty well in bringing dominant beliefs into question, revealing their incoherence or baselessness, or just submitting them to rational enquiry? — Jamal
"Ecrasez l'infâme!" ~VoltaireBtw, philosophizing began for me in encounters with (raw) stupidity of other teens and adults, then authority figures and institutions, finally profound failures and missed opportunities I'd discovered throughout the histories I'd studied. Recognizing stupidity as endemic to the human condition was my initial existential crisis (i.e. despair) at 16/17 from which, over four decades later, I've still not recovered. — 180 Proof
Reality is a donut-hole, or nothing out of something. — Thus Spoke 180 Proof
Marriage [Love] is the triumph of imagination over intelligence. Second marriage [love again] is the triumph of hope over experience. — Oscar Wilde
Love is divine only and difficult always. If you think it is easy you are a fool. If you think it is natural you are blind. — Toni Morrison
If you have reasons to love someone, you don’t love them.
Love feels like a great misfortune, a monstrous parasite, a permanent state of emergency that ruins all small pleasures. — Slavoj Žižek
I regard him as a philosopher. He is a practioner of philosophy – Donald Trump; and he is a philosopher of fuckyouism. — Steve Schmidt, former GOP senior campaign advisor, from discussion with former Senator Al Franken (D-MN), podcast 7 May 2023
Not "opposite TO" (i.e. opposition) but opposite OF is what I wrote. Opposite of science ... of knowledge ... of explanation ... of truth-telling ... If not 'pseudoscience', then what is the opposite OF science? :chin:However how then is there an "opposite to science". — Benj96
I also don't exclude other intellectual or cultural endeavors e.g. history, music, poetry, philosophy, comparative studies, mathematics, sports, politics, etc.For me its not "science or .." but rather "science and..."
The term means 'false science' or making explanatory claims which fail to – cannot – explain anything. I'm not using the term in a polemical fashion or for rhetorical effect, though it can be used that way as you point out.For me the term "pseudoscience" is a fancy way of disregarding/dismissing or making inferior or supposedly obsolete all other pursuits outside the realm of science, philosophy ofc being one of them.
Like a grown-up kid. :wink:How would it make you feel? — Benj96
Ideals exist for a reason.
Realism[Reals] also exists for a reason.
How do approach them?
How do you think we ought navigate such a dynamic?
Ethics is a reflective practice (which I mentioned previously) with normative implications similiar to aesthetics. Non-propositional (often suppositional) and pragmatic.Where does ethics fall into this? — Benj96
No. It's philosophy.Is it [ethics] pseudoscience? I
Do we "retain knowledge" of our time as blastocysts? :roll:Do you have evidence that the butterfly retains no knowledge of its time as a caterpillar? — universeness
I imagine crawling is, at best, useless for flying. Maybe butterflies keep caterpillars around just to study them (e.g. "butterflygenesis") or for shitz-n-giggles (à la reality tv, stupid pet tricks, etc) or both? :smirk:Might the butterfly maintain much of the 'mind' of the caterpillar?
:up:I suppose it's a process.
A slow painful process of overcoming self doubt and learned helplessness. — HarryHarry
suggesting that 'dogma & bigotry' obstruct free inquiry (i.e. reflective practice).The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. — Galileo Galilei
The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels. — Albert Einstein (1946)
We are the cure.
If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' (i.e. believing all beliefs are false), then I agree with you, Tom. If, however, you mean 'belief in nothing', then I disagree because most people believe – place highest value – in fictions (e.g. gods, demons, ghosts, souls, miracles, horoscopes, ideology, ideals) either in lieu of or more than they believe – place highest value – in demonstrable something (e.g. nature, facts, uncertainty, cognitive biases / limits, other people, death, etc).Nihilism seems moderately rare ... — Tom Storm
Advaita Vedanta comes to mind first ... but I suppose it depends on what's meant by "transcendence".Can you point to any religion that does not have some notion of transcendence as central? — Janus
:cool: :up:I always liked Ambrose Bierce's definition:
“Religion, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable.” — Tom Storm
Yes, "religious claims" have never been publicly demonstrated to be true.Would you say that they are all devoid to true content (in their claims)? — Hallucinogen
Usually. No.But what about the claims of religions, are those incompatible, or are you unsure?
Neither. I'm saying that "all religions" are myths and that they can be – most, especially dead religions, have been – studied as such. They have the same function (re: pacifying false fears with false hopes) even though their contents may be "incompatible" like e.g. 'styles of art' or 'varieties of medicines' or 'tribal/territorial identities' throughout history and across cultures. I suppose this implies the "doctrine" of religious skepticism.Are you saying mythology itself holds this view or that the universe of each myth entails incompatability with all others? — Hallucinogen
