Good post. I saw "chaos magic" and was prepared for baloney, but you've laid out an interesting issue, one I've thought about a lot.

— The central defining tenet of chaos magic is arguably the idea that belief is a tool for achieving effects.
Effectiveness is the measure of truth.
— 7th principle of Huna — HarryHarry

I had never come across Hawaiian philosophy. I wish you would give us a bit more background. It might even be a good thread by itself.

Is the final goal of science effectiveness? — HarryHarry

On the other hand, what if Truth for Truth's sake, has the best effect? — HarryHarry

What do you think?
-Is effectiveness a good measurement of truth?
-Is truth for truth's sake the best goal, or should the goal be to have an effective life philosophy?
-Is there necessarily a tension between the two? — HarryHarry

I sometimes call myself a pragmatist. One of the things I mean by that is that the ultimate goal of thought is to determine what we should do next. If that's what's important, then truth is only a tool, not a goal in itself. It's secondary and too tight a focus on it is misleading. So, no, effectiveness is not a measure of truth. I guess you could say truth is a measure of effectiveness.

And no, I don't think truth for truth sake is all that important. I would say that knowledge for knowledge sake is. I think curiosity drives us to know the world in ways we can't know now will be useful in the future. So the final goal of science is not truth, it is knowledge, understanding. The most earth-shattering knowledge seems to come from sources that didn't seem all that useful in the beginning.

Good post.

I came across a very interesting reference on the subject and, since Discussions are the heart of this place, I believe this is a good place for submitting it. — Alkis Piskas

@javi2541997 is right. This is a good idea for a thread. I never saw it when it was first posted.

All of the points you've highlighted are important, but the one I think is the biggest issue here on the forum is "Focus: A discussion needs to stay on track rather than go wandering off on various tangents incidental to the main issues at hand." The way that happens is that someone writes a good OP, which, by the way, you have. In my mind, the OP is where you set out the rules for the discussion. One thing I think is important is that all the important terms are defined. In other discussions on that issue, others have disagreed with me. They think the meanings of the words should be defined as part of the discussion. In my experience, that leads to "wandering off on various tangents."

Hey, Javi... Thanks for bringing this back up.

What is the "referent" for the term "noumenon"?
Can it have a referent?
Kant states that the noumenon is objectless (and also subjectless) beyond space, time and causality,
so how can there be any referent for "noumenon"?
if it is a concept, is it not then an object of thought? but if the noumenon is not an object, then we have contradicted ourselves... — jancanc

I am not the only one to notice that Kant's noumena have a lot in common with Lao Tzu's Tao. The Tao Te Ching is a whole book written to talk about that which can not be talked about. The first line of the first verse is "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." Certainly Lao Tzu recognized the irony. I've always thought he laughed while he was writing.

Fact is, that irony is the whole point. It frames a particular understanding of reality that can't be expressed in language. The intellectual trouble we all have with the contradiction kicks us out of our normal, everyday reality to a place where we have to see everything differently. So... shrug your shoulders and live with the puzzlement.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from Chuang Tzu. I think it applies equally to noumena and the Tao - “What things things is not itself a thing.” Or from a different translation "making things of things but unable to be made anything of by any thing."

Good post. Well thought out.

Making assertions without evidence or justification isn't very helpful. — Judaka

What an odd thing to say. The evidence I see is the same as what you see - the way black people are treated here in the US. The governor of one of our largest states claims that ancestors of black people living here today benefited from their enslavement. Earlier in this thread, I quoted from a news article about a man who couldn't fish in a lake near his home without his neighbors continually calling the police. I've told before about my friend who never felt welcomed in her life till she visited Hawaii where her skin color was mistaken as native Hawaiian. I've also written previously about Tim Scott, the black US Senator from South Carolina and a current presidential candidate who wrote about the humiliation he suffered being stopped and questioned time after time on the Capitol grounds. And on and on and on and on and on for 400 years.

In previous discussions, the difference between your and my moral sense has become clear. You have focused on more or less codified social moral rules while I have focused on personal empathy and kindness. Sometimes it seems like we are talking different languages and can't understand each other.

It seems to me it is evident that many white people are very prejudiced against most black people. There are stats that validate this observation, but anyone with eyes and ears can see prejudice in operation without having to look very far. — BC

Yes, I agree with what you've written, but I would go further. I am as huggy-kissy liberal as just about anyone. I also have very close black friends whom I consider family. And yet, I see and feel those same judgmental, suspicious impulses in myself. I will go so far as to say that any white person who claims that isn't also true of them is deluded. Do you think that doesn't show? Do you think it isn't humiliating?

I'm not asking for guilt or shame, just self-awareness and acknowledgement.

Hmm.. racism vs anti-blackism. I think the problem is the ‘ism’ that is implied whenever we pit one broad category (white) against another (black). — Joshs

White people don't like black people... There is no "ism" there. It's just a fact. It's not ideology or philosophy, it's the way the world, or at least the United States, is.

what I have come to think of as "retired engineers" — Banno

Stop, stop. You're making me blush.

Your behavior suggests otherwise, which is why you're participating in the smear. — Tzeentch

Hey, @Quixodian, @Tzeentch is bickering.

You wrote:

you view RFK as a political opponent too. — Tzeentch

In response I wrote "RFK Jr. is a clown," because I don't consider him a legitimate political opponent at all. Whatever you think of me, you shouldn't ascribe motives to me when you don't know what you're talking about.

Uummm... never useful, eh? Becsuse racism and sexism don't exist? — LuckyR

As I've said before, white people don't like, trust, or respect black people. — T Clark

Case in point:

Black fisherman repeatedly confronted by white neighbors, who ask what he’s doing there

Anthony Gibson said his TikTok videos show “what people like me have to go through when they live in a nice neighborhood.”

Three times in one day, Anthony Gibson was asked by a white person what he was doing sitting by a pond in his neighborhood in Newnan, Georgia... Gibson, who is Black and documents his experiences fishing for catfish, carp, crappies and other fish on the social platform, said he has started videotaping every time one of the white residents in his 200-home development, Springwater Plantation, confronts him, asking for his address and questioning whether he should be there. He told NBC News that he soon learned he wasn’t the only Black resident of the community to be confronted by white neighbors.

In the July 11 video, Gibson sat with two Black female friends when a white resident... told him that the lake was for “residents only,” and that she would take down his license plate to report him to local authorities. By the end of the day, Gibson said he and his friends were approached a total of four times that day by residents asking him if he lived in the community... Two other white men fishing nearby told Gibson that they had been fishing at the pond for seven years and had never been questioned, even though they didn’t live in the community...

“I’m telling the police, ‘Why are you bothering me?’” Gibson said. “I said, ‘I can’t believe that you’re bothering me this much and all I’m doing is fishing.’ I’m not smoking. I’m not drinking. I’m not partying. I’m not making loud noise. I’m not loitering. But you asked me all of these questions.” — NBC News

Uummm... never useful, eh? Becsuse racism and sexism don't exist? — LuckyR

As I've said before, white people don't like, trust, or respect black people. "Racism" is a euphemism that rounds over the sharp corners and takes out some of the sting. It takes something intensely personal and hateful and makes it impersonal and institutional. Using that word makes people feel like they're doing something when they're really not.

you view RFK as a political opponent too. — Tzeentch

RFK Jr. is a clown.

I broadly agree, but as you do to, I accept the moderation. For me, its simple, respect the borders, or expect a deserved angry retort in kind. No one likes to accept the role of punchbag, physically or textually. So, don't expect me to. I will take part in a 'slagging match,' if that's what you need.
It's very easy, especially on such an anonymous site. If ya wanna light fires then you may also be burned!
According to google it was Marcus T. Cicero who said, As you have sown so shall you reap. — universeness

I have a response, but to prevent further accusations of bickering, I will forgo it.

So have you ever been challenged for saying Jack + s in a box or Jack-in-the-box + es? — javi2541997

The problem is that "Jacks-in-the-box" could be more than one Jack in a single box. So, I vote for that. Ambiguous and a little goofy. I am a big fan of ambiguous, goofy language.

I've excised a couple of pointless back-and-forths. — Quixodian

I don't appreciate that and I don't think it was appropriate. The statements on both our parts were short and not particularly harsh. I was expressing a strong but civil - and true - reaction to his comments. I consider what I wrote a strong statement of disapproval. Not bickering at all.

That's not what he said — Tzeentch

“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” — New York Post

RFK was recently smeared as being anti-semitic in a not-so-subtle attempt at silencing political opposition. — Tzeentch

RFK was "smeared" for saying that covid had been engineered so that Jewish people would not get sick. How would you characterize Kennedy's claim?

I agree that "racist" more accurately describes situations or rules than people. — LuckyR

I don't think it's ever useful.

In the West, racism & sexism are considered immoral, there are no cases of either that can be justified. The terms condemn, and there are serious issues with this when you look at what the comprehensive understanding is. It's fine for the terms to generally refer to and acknowledge factors beyond explicit, personal ideology, and to acknowledge that we can't rely on people opening stating their motivations, but then we can't treat the terms the same as before. — Judaka

As I've said before, I don't use the term "racist." I don't think it's useful and it certainly is misleading. As the text from your post I quoted suggests, the term paints all offenders with the same paint - white nationalists are grouped with people who are well-meaning but unaware of their unspoken attitudes and how they are expressed. There is no policy or action that will be effective in changing racial attitudes by treating those two types of people the same.

It's also misleading because it doesn't focus on the consequences of white peoples attitudes towards black people, which is what really matters.

Good post. Sometimes you're just so... reasonable.

Yes, well he's become...quixotic... — Janus

I try to avoid 'throwing grenades' nowadays although it's something I've often done in the past. I attempt (not always successfully) to differ tactfully. — Quixodian

You've always been better at avoiding that than I have. I continue to work on it.

I devised a new user name — Quixodian

I like the icon a lot.

I came into forums not as 'pro religion' but as 'anti-materialist', — Quixodian

You are the one I had in mind when I was talking about religious posts that don't address the existence of God. There's lots to say, but atheists don't seem to be able to see beyond the most simplistic ideas.

Richard Dawkins said in his intro to TGD that he hoped Christians who picked up his book would put it down atheist - it had rather the opposite effect on me (not that I read all of it, and not that I identify as Christian in any but the cultural sense.) — Quixodian

I gave The God Delusion to my daughter as a Christmas present as an example of bad philosophy.

Have you watched any of the online debates/exchanges between theists and atheists that you consider high quality. — universeness

I said religion-related discussions, not discussions between theists and atheists. That was my point - all religious discussions are not about whether or not God exists, although the atheists on the forum try to turn all religious discussions in that direction.

I personally thought Mikie's thread was a good one. — universeness

I'm not surprised. You think anything that shows disrespect for religion is good, no matter how badly thought out or weakly argued.

That's not really a mod bias but the prevailing mode of discussion — Baden

Yes, I was talking about the forums modus operandi, not any action by the moderators.

And to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with having discussions like @Mikie's here on the forum. I just wanted to point out the irony of his position.

Does it even matter what most people say on the subject when the basic way of life, notion of success etc. is so similar? — Baden

To some extent, I think the hostility toward religion here leads to the low quality of many religion-related discussions. Even nuanced and expansive discussions of religious issues tend to be steered toward typical simplistic, repetitive arguments.

Still, I expected the anti-religion to be a bit more robust given the context of a philosophy forum. — Leontiskos

Yes, that's one of my main complaints about anti-religious discussions here on the forum. They rarely have substance. People pull out the flying spaghetti monster and think that's all they have to say.

I think you're exagerrating a bit, — Quixodian

My old friend @Wayfarer would have agreed with me... maybe not.

I think you're exaggerating. — Janus

Hmmm... I'm trying to decide if you and Quixodian are right... I don't think so. I admit I do feel the need to speak strongly on these issues.

One of the reasons that I am spending time on a philosophy forum is because I want to avoid the inane evangelism that occurs—almost always between Christians and atheists—so often on the internet. — Leontiskos

Religious voices don't stand much of a chance here on the forum. Anything that shows even mild respect for religious ideas is attacked and ridiculed. Proselytization is much more likely to come from the atheist side than from believers.

I'll look forward to an answer from a moderator regarding the question of what is and is not evangelization. — Leontiskos

Sad to say, @Mikie is a moderator.

And yet, here you go starting another anti-religion discussion.

That was a minor suggestion, though. I realize the forum already fought just to get the ability to edit, so tinkering with that ability is probably not a high priority. — Leontiskos

Every so often I like to go through some of my old posts and correct the grammar. I also removed all of my statements from 2015 and 2016 where I said Donald Trump would be the best president ever.

T Clark throws around accusations of meaninglessness rather freely — SophistiCat

Hey! I resemble that remark.

You mean translations of the Tao. It is notable that no two translations into English are the same. — Wayfarer

No, that’s not what I meant.

I agree, but would prefer the subtly different 'brings the world into being'. — Wayfarer

The two terms are generally used interchangeably, although I acknowledge there is a bit of a difference in feel. Different translations of the Tao Te Ching use one, the other, or both words. I like using both. The Tao Te Ching is full of subtly different uses of language, so there is room for ambiguous usage.

I'll point out that there are multiple interpretations of the Tao. — javra

Sure, although my understanding is a pretty mainstream one and I think my observation was valid. It goes back directly to the Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu, the founding documents of Taoism. There is a generally recognized difference between philosophical Taoism, which I am referring to, and religious Taoism, which I know very little about.

Yes, I can understand that, yet this at the same time reminds me of the saying “the Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao”: To speak of X is to necessarily have a conceptual understanding of X. A conceptual understanding will itself be other relative to that which understands it, and thereby necessitate a duality between I-ness (the personal act of understanding) and non-I-ness (that which is understood in conceptual form). — javra

I don't think this is an argument against anything you are saying. I guess it's just an observation. I don't know much Buddhism, but in Taoism, it seems to me there is much less antagonism between the Tao and the 10,000 things than there is between the I-ness and non-I-ness you are discussing. There's a cycle - Tao to multiplicity of things and back to Tao again - continuously and continually taking place. Everything is always both. The idea of illusion doesn't really come into it.

the themes of "union" and "returning" can only be coherently aligned to this state of perfectly nondual being, in one way or another, itself being a soteriological end As such, the state of perfectly nondual being is then a teleological determinant, — javra

Again, in my understanding of Taoism, the Tao and the multiplicity of the world are recognized as continually cycling, returning. Neither causes the other. The Tao is not better or more important than the 10,000 things. What's important is our awareness of the cycle.

I struggle to see the sense in defining anything as relative. You could say something changes in relation to something else, but that relation is defined in absolute terms. To say the world is relative seems arbitrary. Relative to what? I also have the issue that I don't see the sense in defining anything as absolute, since a word means nothing in isolation. It requires context to provide any meaning. That context can be seen as its relation to other words. Defining something is like providing a set of boundaries for that thing. Those boundaries can be seen as a definition of its relation to everything else, its context. Without anything else, so in isolation, this would make the definition of that thing meaningless. — Matt Thomas

Do you really struggle or is that just a rhetorical garnish? As Lao Tzu wrote:

When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other
Therefore the sages:
Manage the work of detached actions
Conduct the teaching of no words
They work with myriad things but do not control
They create but do not possess
They act but do not presume
They succeed but do not dwell on success
It is because they do not dwell on success
That it never goes away — Tao Te Ching - Verse 2 - Derek Lin translation

This is a fundamental insight from just about all ways of seeing the world, not just eastern philosophies. When you get to know me better, you'll see I bring the Tao Te Ching into just about all my arguments.

Welcome to the forum.

Alva Noë argues against the view that consciousness is solely a product of the brain's activity. He contends that the traditional approach of trying to understand consciousness by studying neural processes within the brain is insufficient and ultimately misleading. Noë proposes that consciousness is not something that happens exclusively inside the brain but emerges through dynamic interactions between the brain, body, and the external world. As such he is aligned with enactivism or embodied cognition which explores how our perception and experience of the world are shaped by our embodiment and interaction with our surroundings. — Wayfarer

At the risk of starting an argument where you don't intend one, do you think there is anyone on the more materialist side of the consciousness issue who doesn't believe "consciousness is not something that happens exclusively inside the brain but emerges through dynamic interactions between the brain, body, and the external world." I certainly believe that.

The theme of this book is that a universe comes into being when a space is severed or taken apart...
http://www.siese.org/modulos/biblioteca/b/G-Spencer-Brown-Laws-of-Form.pdf — unenlightened

As you note later in this post, this is the essence of how Lao Tzu saw creation and the ground of being. Here are a couple of verses from Ellen Marie Chen's translation of the Tao Te Ching:

Verse 1

Tao that can be spoken of,
Is not the Everlasting Tao.
Name that can be named,
Is not the Everlasting name.
Nameless, the origin of heaven and earth;
Named, the mother of ten thousand things.

Verse 40

Returning (fan) is the movement of Tao.
Weak is the functioning of Tao.
Ten thousand things under heaven are born of being.
Being is born of non-being. — Lao Tzu - Ellen Marie Chen translation

The idea that naming brings the world into existence is the foundation of my metaphysics. What that implies for human psychology, sociology, and ethics; not to mention science; is profound.

If you are a consequentialist, the best outcome is the one which can be most reliably produced, the one over which you have the most control. It is unrealistic to apply something like an objective standard - the best outcome - when any kind of non-trivial activity invariably results in unforseen outcomes. — Pantagruel

Yes. Good response, saving me the necessity of responding.

Eve of Chaos by Sylvia Day. Bought it at Dollar General. It's sexy and about hunting demons. I bought it like last year sometime and now it's time to start reading what I bought. This is going to to be a little more like I want my life to be like. Current goal: to read a little more. — magictriangle

Once we get to know you better, we'll playfully tease you about getting your books at Dollar General, but for now, welcome to the forum.