Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? — ucarr

Yet this is what some people are.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

You seem to think that only that which is _not_ somehow related to proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries gets to pass for "individuality".

I think that's an absurd standard.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual.

Sure, when the goal is set so high.

For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

What do you think the self consists of?

Again the NATO and Nazi things show to be partial rationales (at best), excuses. — jorndoe

The Russians should be more moral than the Americans because [complete the sentence].

I don't think I've declared myself a Buddhist on this forum, — Wayfarer

You said as much. But the exact quote of yours is too hard to find, since the keywords are too common.

although I have a strong interest in Buddhism, and would appreciate not being stereotyped.

Not stereotyped, but held accountable. This could be your last chance.

Anyway - Putin himself invoked the spirit of the tsar Peter to rationalise his invasion. His actions and murderous disregard for human life are in keeping with the spirit of Josef Stalin also.

You really enjoy saying such things, huh? You're willing to posit the existence of a soul, a selfhood, just so that you can enjoy in the contempt you feel for someone, and the self-righteousness.

gradually subverts 'systems of control' imposed by the former (orthodoxy ~ telos). — 180 Proof

Only if the religion is in fact ineffective, or if people believe it to be ineffective (such as by not practicing what they preach).

Religions are, on principle, supposed to be a means to an end. Practing in line with the doctrine should lead to the declared goal.

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense.
— baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun. — creativesoul

*sigh*

An example:
Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with.

Another poster understood me just fine.

Samuel Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." That lots of people know we are facing an existential threat hasn't done the trick of concentrating our minds. — Bitter Crank

Isn't self-confidence great!
Maybe if people learn to "believe in themselves" sufficiently, they can even live off of CO2!

Yet this simple fact will hardly have any impact to some. Too many people are mesmerized with ideas that improvements happen only by basically stealing from others, that capitalism and the market mechanism are bad, because there are obvious problems and injustices around us. Hence throw everything out...at least at a theoretical level. Yet central planning and socialism without market mechanism hasn't worked. But who cares about history? — ssu

Well, some people think that.

Some of us are just digusted by living solely for the sake of living. All this eating, consuming, day in day out, getting nowehre, spinning around in a circle of consumption. This principle of consumption is the same, whether we're living a caveman lifestyle, or a post-industrial one.

The Luddite argument can be easily shown not to be true as the industrial revolution didn't bring us hoards of beggars roaming the countryside as there would be no work. — ssu

There would be countless beggars because there'd be no work for people, were it not that some people invented new desires to cater to, even raising them to the level of "needs". That's how new jobs were created and people weren't unemployed en masse.

Do you feel no compunction at inventing new desires, new "needs" even, just so that the business keeps going?

In order to maintain the relatively high standard of living for some people, many other people have to live a relatively low standard. So that's not really a solution.
— baker
Why?

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

For example, take all the Americans of 2022. Compare them with all the Americans of 1822.

How will you argue that compared to two hundred years ago, only some Americans have become more prosperous, but others have it worse than in 1822. — ssu

Queen Victoria didn't have internet access. I guess she wasn't particularly prosperous.

You're looking at prosperity in absolute terms. I think this is problematic, because prosperity then gets to be defined by some arbitrary standard that depends solely on "how far people dare to dream".

Prosperity isn't fixed. It's not a game of someone wins, others loose.

Yet the _relative_ difference between the rich and the poor is the same, regardless of which time period you observe.

It is a solution.

The real question is how to get there.

The scarcity of natural resources puts a limit to human expansion. If natural resources would be unlimited and easy enough to obtain, then the process of growth as has been taking place for the past two hundred years or so could continue, and your "solution" could come true. As things stand, it can't.

I'm not sure what I can do about that. We often believe arguments made by people more powerful than ourselves. Sometime this is appropriate (if their power is on their expertise), sometimes we only make the show of acquiescence because it's socially convenient, we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories. — Isaac

You mean like, What would Aragorn do?

I feel like I've just rewritten what I wrote before, but maybe if it's still not making sense, you might explain what's missing.

I don't find your explanation believable. I suppose what you're saying is what people often do; in a sense, it's the essence of religion/religiosity; it's also why people can feel inspired by and find a feeling of confidence about life in the Harry Potter books, LOTR, or Star Wars, to name some notable examples.

I often wonder about the potential for real-world application of moral and other principles or "lessons" found in fiction. Bruno Bettelheim was probably the most famous (if not original) proponent of the idea that people learn to overcome real-world life problems through what is clearly fiction, ie. fairy tales. (Although given the limited resources an individual person has for experimenting and testing, the life advice given in "science based" help books might as well be fiction, too.)

Just because acting in a particular way worked out fine in the end for Frodo, doesn't mean doing something similar will work out fine for me as well. Of course, if a work of fiction is complex and nuanced enough, it provides scenarios that can accomodate such failure as well.

we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories.

As long as this is merely a description of what works for people, that's one thing. But to take it as a prescription?? To _deliberately_ pick a work of fiction and use some of the characters in it as one's "support group"? In my experience, this doesn't work.

And that's how psychologists betray people.
Clearly, you're interested in staying on the surface of things, pushing your particular ideology.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.” — Art48

Roman Catholic theologians follow the Catechism of the RCC. There, it is stated what conditions must be fulfilled for a person to commit mortal sin and to thus go to hell. (It's quite difficult to get there. Hitler, for example, might not actually qualify for eternal damnation, as far as the Catechism of the RCC goes.)

Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

Yes. Roman Catholicism is one of the few religions with a catechism, an actual metatext that defines the religion's doctrine. RC is, doctrinally, well-defined, which makes the discrepancies between the official doctrine and the various folk beliefs held by ordinary Roman Catholics more egregious.

I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

The question can be asked more generally:
Which version of a religion is the right one: The one that is codified in its foundational religious texts, or the one espoused by the people who claim to be members of said religion?

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself": all this is easy. Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy.

Advertisers have created a culture of consumerism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In the spirit of empirical science: How would you go about proving this claim of yours?

I suggest reading Edward Bernays and Ernest Dichter (et al) to get a picture of how a culture of consumerism was intentionally created. They're proud of their work and talk about it more or less openly. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Or maybe they just liked to brag, taking credit for things they didn't do. What else to expect from someone working in or around advertising!

The hole needing filling is the problem.
— Isaac

Sure, a good part of the problem. But the saturation of society by adsters deepens the hole and offers insidious pseudo-solutions to the hole - what Frankl called the existential vacuum.

So I think mass manipulation sustains the existential vacuum. I don't see a way to tease them apart. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not even if it rained gold coins
would we have our fill
of sensual pleasures.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.14.than.html

This is from a text old more than two thousand years. Or read Ecclesiastes in the Bible.

The existential vacuum and the awareness of it have existed long before modern methods of "mass manipulation".

So I think mass manipulation sustains the existential vacuum. I don't see a way to tease them apart.

And you want to be a psychotherapist??

I assume you accept that the popularity of flannel shirts in the 90s had its origin in the grunge movement given a global platform on MTV. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Flannel shirts have been popular among farmers and other physical workers for pretty much as long as those people could afford them. This precedes grunge.

this desire to be led — ZzzoneiroCosm

Really, people want to be led? I don't see that.

If you want to discuss this:

The right-wingers say that the "self-serving and devious" are the leftists.
The leftists say that the "self-serving and devious" are the right-wingers.

They also differ in who exactly those "innocent masses" are.

So who is who exactly?
— baker

...you might start a thread in the politics section. — ZzzoneiroCosm

No. I am asking you:

Who are those "innocent masses"?

Who are the "self-serving and devious"?

Your thread topic depends on taking for granted that those categories exist. But it's not clear that they do exist. There is no social consensus about who they are. You can't pinpoint them. So who are they?

I think both concepts, "the innocent masses" and "the self-serving and devious", are artificial constructs intended to serve some ideological purpose.



As for how psychologists have betrayed democracy: By pretending to be morally and ideologically neutral when they're not, and demading from us to act as if this pretense doesn't exist.

What do you think is true Catholicism?
That which is declared in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or that which is held by a considerable variety of people who claim to be Catholics? Or something else altogether?

What you say is true. On the other hand, can you cite legions of family, friends and acquaintances who frequent this website, ready to spout alternatives to the cultural conventions that guide our everyday lives? — ucarr

Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities.

Do you think a poor, ugly person enjoys being self-aware, benefits from it?
— baker

I would say that self awareness has no bearing on appearance or financial resources. You seem to be talking about self-consciousness or self-hatred. — Tom Storm

You keep twisting around what I say..

Oh, Smith.

It's emaciated to believe that one cannot peacefully coexist with their enemies. — creativesoul

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense.

...and a 'gut feeling' is different to a belief, how? — Isaac

One cannot justify it, not even to oneself. It's not based on a syllogism, and one cannot even construct a syllogism to support, in hindsight/ad hoc.

If I have a belief that I’m unaware of it would never change. — praxis

It's not clear this is the case.

If you knowingly change your stance about something, this could have implications for your other beliefs, over time, without you being aware of those implications at the time of the change.

Could you sketch out how exactly, or point me to a source?
— baker

Basically, stories. We're quite easily fooled by stories, so whilst a social group seems indispensable for the construction of many complex beliefs, those social groups don't have to be real. — Isaac

The topic here were the epistemic implications of power relationships between people (Do I believe someone's argument because I am convinced by its rationality, or by the power of the person who made it?). You said this was surmountable. I asked, how. From what you said, I don't see that you explained that it is surmountable.

I semi-seriously wonder if the soul of Putin died some decades ago and his body taken over by the malevolent spirit which also animated Josef Stalin, which lurks around the Kremlin waiting for some potential body to inhabit. After all, Putin's high- school teacher couldn't remember Vlad, he was such a colorless and unexceptional pupil. So now he's just become a carrier for that same industrial-scale cruelty and malevolence that his predecessor exhibited. — Wayfarer

And this coming from a Buddhist.

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others. — creativesoul

Because believing that one should not approach others in bad faith is ... just egregious!!!!!! Emaciated!!!!

So you mean to say that the Buddha "deceives" people into being ethical by dangling the false gift of nirvana before their eyes? Most interesting! Nevertheless, there is a reward, even if only an illusion of one and that brings us back to what I referred to in my posts - ethics as a means to...happiness. — Agent Smith

This is Mahayana doctrine. Not all Buddhist schools teach such things.

Yeah, I get that virtue is a reward in itself but all religions, without exception I'd say, peddle virtue as a means to paradise, attaining nirvana, achieving moksha and so on.

On the flip side, the highest good, in these very same ideologies again, is to expect no reward for one's good thoughts/words/deeds. — Agent Smith

Can you support this claim with doctrinal evidence?

What you're saying is often claimed by various religious/spiritual people, as a display of one's grandeur and piousness, and as an implicit way to demand generosity and goodwill from others.
But I can't think of any actual doctrinal references that would actually support this notion of "expecting no reward for one's good thoughts/words/deeds."

Well, how are they - Nagarjuna's tetralemma & ethics - connected? — Agent Smith

Who says they are??

What does Nagarjuna's tetralemma have to do with ethics? — Agent Smith

What does Nagarjuna's tetralemma have to do with the Noble Eightfold Path?

Yeah, interesting. I suppose that's more true than it might at first seem if one considers social as well as economic power relationships. I do think it's surmountable though, but I agree the temptation makes it difficult to be sure. — Isaac

Could you sketch out how exactly, or point me to a source?

I think, one difficulty here is that there's two aspects to these types of discussion that people are interested in. The 'beliefs' we find most interesting are those like god, socialism, transgenders, etc... But these are a tiny minority of beliefs.

We all believe, for example, that larger objects cannot fit inside smaller ones.

It's not clear this would generally even be considered a belief, but rather, knowledge, common sense, something that isn't up for dispute.

The former type of beliefs I think are held almost entirely for reasons of social relationships. The latter type more for pragmatic or biological reasons. The forces which act on each type will be different.

I agree. I find that often, the former are attempted by many people to be advocated as the latter. For example, "All men are created equal" or "Those who refuse to get vaccinated against covid are selfish" are sometimes advocated as being as equally true, objective, self-evident as "2 + 2 = 4".

The right-wingers say that the "self-serving and devious" are the leftists.
The leftists say that the "self-serving and devious" are the right-wingers.

They also differ in who exactly those "innocent masses" are.

So who is who exactly?

What you're describing is epistemic egoism. It's the ideal of epistemic autonomy.
Given that we're not living in a vacuum, epistemic autonomy is not possible.
— baker

Ego is an undeniable aspect of being human so it’s no surprise that it will influence personal beliefs.
If an individual is nefarious and they have power and influence then they can insist their personal beliefs are more important than the beliefs of some alternate mass or group of people with less power and influence. But, all tyrants are eventually overthrown, even those who seem to have total power. The combined belief of a large majority that they are not being treated in an acceptable way that makes their lives worth living is often the reason why those who think their beliefs/legacy will ‘stand for a thousand years,’ gets overthrown relatively quickly. — universeness

I wasn't thinking about epistemic egoism in such socially dramatic terms. I was speaking in reference to your claim "I am advocating for some rigorous background checking to make sure YOUR conviction or belief it’s true is justified to YOU".

The epistemic egoist maintains that one must possess positive reasons in favor of other people's reliability or trustworthiness before their beliefs and testimony offer prima facie social evidence.

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12184#:~:text=The%20epistemic%20egoist%20maintains%20that,offer%20prima%20facie%20social%20evidence.

Also see Ethical and Epistemic Egoism and the Ideal of Autonomy.

And again, your distinction of "feels certain" from "is certain" does not make sense.

Wo else makes this distinction? Can you point to a source? — Banno

It's common sense to make this distinction. From what you've said so far, you're making it as well. Otherwise, you couldn't say things like "Faith is unwarranted belief."

If you see yourself as the arbiter of what makes a belief warranted or unwarranted, it means that in a particular case, you determine whether a particular person is certain of x, or, at best, can merely feel certain of x (regardless of what said person claims about their relationship with x).

Ah, so we are free to "think" that such-and-such is true, free of the yoke of authority? — Banno

We are, but the usefulness of this freedom is yet to be seen. It's right up there with "Everyone is free to buy themselves a private jet."

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points?
— baker
It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question. — L'éléphant

Because proposition no. 8 and its implications don't seem to be in line with a materialist/physicalist/realist point of view.

Who exactly are the "innocent masses" and the "self-serving and devious"?

Different political options have different ideas about who those are.

I was told the middle path doesn't take sides. — Agent Smith

Told by whom??

A cornerstone idea of Buddhism is that all propsitions are undecidable and hence epoché (suspension of judgment)

Where on earth do you get these ideas about Buddhism????

The masses are essentially innocent in the hands of expert psychologists and mass-manipulators. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well, do you want democracy or not?

If the innocent masses should get to have a say, why shouldn't the expert psychologists and mass-manipulators have a say as well?