Heck, I've never known anyone who has evinced the belief that when they die, they will go to heaven. — Wayfarer

Everyone I know who claims to believe in an afterlife believes that they will either go to heaven or be reborn as some fancy, exalted being.

In fact, in an argument with a Catholic lady, I once actually said, "Yeah, but for you, everything's easy, because you'll go to heaven and be happy forever", to which she smiled in a matter-of-factly manner, "We'll all go to heaven". And she's a Catholic!! What she said was heresy!

It seems to be an essential part of religious/spiritual life to have the confidence that God/karma is on one's side.

Poor horses!

Is "no reason" ever an acceptable answer?

Depends on the relationship between the person asking the question and the person replying "No reason".

The subordinate person can get into trouble if they ever answer "No reason", but the one in position of power can say so as they please.

What's wrong with "naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated" listening to music? How many know how to play an electronic guitar? How many know the history of pop-music or rock?

How are those people who don't know all that about pop or rock music so different in their liking of the music from those who do? — ssu

To name just a few:
They get bored more easily by the music.
They miss out on important artistic elements.
They contribute to the culture of shallowness and the general decline of civilization into mere consumerism.
They don't meaningfully contribute to the artists who produced the art work.

And I don't mean to be offensive.

Sorry, but it's really not a relevant difference. Yeah, if you know how to play the guitar, you might really appreciate more some virtuoso, yet is that really relevant?

Relevant to whom?
To the guitar virtuoso -- probably not.
I think that a person who is approaching art in a consumerist, easy fashion is not making the best use of their time and resources. It's a bit like insisting on eating cold pizza.

I think more relevant is the hostility we take towards some music that isn't "for us". Hostility to classical music is actually quite similar to the hostility towards country music or the music "ordinary people" listen to. The music that the peasant, the redneck, the yokel, listens to in their shabby bars and gatherings. Why is that music so bad?

Take away the social or class construct around it, a lot of music is quite interesting to listen to.

Provided one has the time and resources to do so.

Are your friends all of one gender, ethnicity, religion and country of origin? — Joshs

Ideally, yes.

And yet you have transcended enough gaps in understanding to embrace them as friends.

No. Over time, those differences drifted us apart.

There is apolitically correct notion that one should be able to be friends with pretty much just anyone. But my experience is that while this may make for politically correct, fashionable relationships, it also makes them shallow and unreliable. With people who are too different from oneself, one may be on "friendly terms", but this is not to be confused for friendship.

Recently Whoopi said the Holocaust wasn't about race, it was about man's inhumanity towards man. — Ree Zen

Hm. A black American celebrity making remarks about race. Tricky. If a white American celebrity were to say the same things, it might have come across very differently.


Moreover, saying that the holocaust wasn't about race, but about man's inhumanity to man is 1. downplaying the holocaust into, basically, yet another horrible thing people do to eachother, and as such it 2. hits home with everyone.

As long as the holocaust is neatly tucked into the category of "racism", it's yet another "Oh, this doesn't concern me, because I'm not a racist". But framing it in more general terms, like "inhumanity" it suddenly becomes something that everyone 1. knows, 2. can do, or 3. can be subject to. And that's why framing it like this is inexcusably rude.

I think American employees should have some protection on how easily their employers can fire them. — ssu

Ah, the heavenly realms of capitalism!

But what you're putting forth so far excuses, for example, the way the Nazis treated the Jews during WWII. "The attributes that are to be valued in the Jews were invisible to the Nazis. The Nazis acted ethically, in accordance with their insight into the Jews."
— baker

That’s exactly right. Ethical intent was not the issue. Lack of insight was. The Jew for centuries represented the alien interloper in European thought. The intent wasn’t to see them as alien and thus morally suspect. Antisemitism was and still is the product of a failure to transcend the gap between cultures. — Joshs

At this point, with this all-too-relevant example, we'd have to venture onto some very delicate territory.

But all the other examples in which your reasoning applies also end up being problematic (in that we'd have to dismantle some taboos).

Antisemitism was and still is the product of a failure to transcend the gap between cultures.

To the best of my knowledge, transcending the gap between cultures has never actually been a value. Sure, some people talk about it a lot. But in order for there to be different cultures at all, there must be gaps between them, otherwise, they would all be one.

*sigh*

Presumably our aim in ethics/morality is that people would coexist in relative harmony. But this relative harmony can be brought about in many ways (such as fear of God, obedience of rules, "good boy/good girl" mentality, following the GR), and following the GR is just one of them. Since you are a proponent of the GR, it's on you to show how it is better than those other ways.

Some people...? If you are calling me a patronising, bossy arsehole I ask you to refrain from this in future. — Tom Storm

I'm pretty sure that at work, you had to have some mandatory seminars on "assertive communication" or something similar, had you not?

As to building up an image as a bad guy, the Russians nee Soviets did, have done, a more than adequate job all on their own. — tim wood

Riiight, let's not take any responsibility for our ideas about others. It's not like this is a philosophy forum or anything like that.

the miraclulous nature of everyday reality. — karl stone

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality".

Of course none of us can guess at Madonna's motivations, but this all seems to be the typical trajectory of a restless showbiz type who constantly playacts with charged but superficial images and appearances in an endless quest, and by association with such images, to remain relevant and interesting. I wonder if it's all just surfaces for her and if there is any depth at all. — Tom Storm

To me, her spiritual quest is simply a spiritual quest, the way so many other people are on a spiritual quest. It's just that in the case of a celebrity person, their spiritual quest because of their celebrity status becomes much more visible to more people and is otherwise magnified in ways that doesn't happen for ordinary people.

I wouldn't judge celebrities and their spiritual quest by the principle of noblesse oblige. For that, I would first need to consider them noble.

So, all facts considered, things are not necessarily quite as simple as they might appear to be, and a degree of critical analysis can’t be a bad thing. Unless we choose to not analyze the inconvenient bits that most people prefer to overlook or cover up. — Apollodorus

If one's aim is to discredit others, that's usually easy.

The only evidence we could ever have for someone's "enlightenment" would be behavior that indicates a disposition of predominant concern for others. — Janus

Why?

Codependent people, for example, engage in behaviors that indicate a disposition of predominant concern for others, but we don't consider codependent people to be enlightened.

Do you see humans as "the measure of all things", that humans are the ones who decide what is and could be, and humans get to decide this for all other beings?
— baker

No. Definitely not. — javra

Then why do you say:

Technology aside, human awareness is able to understand and analyze its own meta-cognition, issues of meta-ethics, the ontological nature of the cosmos, advanced probability theory, and so forth. No other living being currently known to us exhibits any indication of holding an awareness that is so capable.

?

If all the classical music heaped up over the centuries serves "no wholesome purpose", what in God's name does? — Bitter Crank

So let's listen to a nice little piece from the classical canon:



Is your life any better now? Have your existential fears disappeared? Are you now beyond sorrow?

The elite have different cultural and practical predispositions than the lower class, so it only makes sense that they experience things differently. — baker

Money or influence doesn't make you hear things differently. — ssu

Being born and raised into a life of money and influence can make one hear things differently.

If one has had the opportunity to listen to classical music all of one's life, from early on, with easy access to it, and has obtained some formal education in it (as used to be the norm for the elite), then it's only normal that one has a different predisposition for hearing classical music than someone who didn't have those advantages.

On the other hand, it's understandable that people don't have as a sport hobby polo as horses are expensive. But listening to classical music isn't. — ssu

Sure. But I argue that it makes an important qualitative difference in one's experience of classical music whether one has had easy opportunity to listen to it from early on in life, has received formal education in it, and has had ample opportunity to discuss the music with other people who are more expert in classical music than oneself.

The relevant difference is between a naive, ad hoc, unsystematic, uneducated, unstructured listening to music and with it, a naive liking; and on the other hand, a systematic, educated, structured listening, which, arguably, provides a more meaningful and profound music experience.

If one doesn't know anything about movements, keys, themes, historical references of a music piece, and so on, listening to classical music is bound to be boring, or at the very least, idiosyncratic.

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right.
— baker

Is that a recommendation or a question? — Tom Storm

Like I said, I'm talking about the distinction between you-language and I-language.

You-language is an attempt to rule over others. Some people who use you-language try to ameliorate its patronizing and other-annihilating effect by proposing that there is no ultimate truth, or that "all is relative" and other such ethically and epistemically repugnant positions.

When, in contrast, they could use I-language and retain the sense that it is possible to know things and that there is truth.

I don't think it's all that important per se to understand the old Greco-Roman world correctly (this seems to be impossible anyway), but rather to consider that there are different views on death possible, and not just the one that is normative in current mainstream culture. And that there may be views on death that can actually help us live more meaningful lives.

Injuries can occur in ballet and breakdancing (don’t know of too many being spectators to gardening). — javra

For the admiration of skill and stamina, one can also watch ballet, or breakdancing, or do gardening. — baker

The difference between combat sports and these activities is that combat sports address preparedness for real life physical conflict. Yes, it would be wonderful if physical conflict never occurred and we’d all live in some impossible heaven on earth. That’s not the world I live in. And so, at least as a youngster, I would watch safely played out combat sports not wanting blood spilled but wanting to learn from others about optimal physical self-defense. As I said, admiring skill and stamina.

I think this is, sadly, mostly wishful thinking. In real life, martial arts skills can often be of very little use, because the assailant is likely going to be armed with a firearm. Moreover, at least in some jurisdictions, martial arts skills count as "use of a weapon" and you could be facing problems with the police because of that.

Further, to rely on martial arts skills means one always needs to be in a good enough physical shape to use them. So if you end up with a broken leg or some chronic disease that diminish your physical strength and stamina, you're going to be in a tough spot if your only means for dealing with prospective violence is the use of martial arts skills.

If you don't agree with Maslow's hierarchy, is it
a) trying to make a hierarchy that is the problem
b) trying to make a list of basic and more complex needs that is a problem
c) the attempt to do either is the problem
d) the human condition is too complex for anything this basic and unscientific — schopenhauer1

e) It's been made into a normative to live up to and a means for judging people severely if they fail.

The way Biden has spoken sounds a lot like they are trying to provoke/encourage Putin into a war. — I like sushi

Of course. The US will strike first, deny it, and blame Russia.
For over 70 years, the West has worked hard to build up an image of Russia as The Bad Guy. They can't just let it go.

And just why would there be a right for Russia for a 'buffer state'? — ssu

Either this, or Russia has every right to put tanks on its borders with the Ukraine.

The US has always worked hard to make it clear that it considers Russia an enemy. Why should Russia not take this seriously?

The US _wants_ to be on enemy terms with Russia, it accepts no other way of relating to it.

Just don't want you to be typing stupid stuff on the internet when you should be in the hospital. — frank

That's ironic because on the ground level, whether or not you have a pain that justifies a visit to the ER or to the doctor at all is a matter of perspective.

I witnessed another example of this just a couple of months back, when the pain in my right side became too much and I asked my father to take me to the ER. At 3 AM. In the middle of the pandemic. That's how bad it was. I hate going to the doctor as it is, and this was only the second time in my entire life that I went to the ER.
But the first doctor in the ER who saw me almost threw me out, saying that just because I vomitted and because I have a pain in my right side that's no reason to go to the doctor at all. She did an EEG and she was quite rough.

The next doctor took my blood and ran some tests, and it turned out I had a gastrointestinal infection.

So much for perspective.

No, it’s an approach to ethics that makes the ability to act ‘ethically’ a function of insight, and no internalization of standards will get around that fact, because it’s not a question of ethical intent but of insight. Wanting to do the right thing, and having all manner of rules and guidelines for dong the right thing, are worthless if the attributes within another that are to be valued are invisible to one. — Joshs

It's not clear where you're going with this.

But what you're putting forth so far excuses, for example, the way the Nazis treated the Jews during WWII. "The attributes that are to be valued in the Jews were invisible to the Nazis. The Nazis acted ethically, in accordance with their insight into the Jews."

Gosh Baker, those comments sound bitter. — Tom Storm

You don't say.

Can the GR end world bigotry and fuckwit behavior? Of course not. Neither can any religious code or ethical system. Are you looking for magic spells that will somehow compel ethical behavior?

In that case, the GR is a liability, not an asset. Or in the best case scenario, its only value is in that it can function as an ego boost.

Do that, and you will be perceived as a pansy, and exploited.
— baker

Has that been your experience?

Of course.

Then why bother with the GR?
— baker

Absolutist thinking. If it isn't a 100% done deal it isn't worth doing? Strange.

It was a question inviting you to elaborate, not to read it as a mere rhetorical device to be scoffed at.

That's bizarre. Only the neurotic think before they act. The normal person is always sure they have done no wrong and can do no wrong.
— baker

Where the hell do you live? In my experience the normal person (whatever that means) has insight and often reflects on their behavior. And as people mature and grow they often reflect more and deeper. And, as for only neurotics thinking before they act, that's a fascinating frame and I would say it's wrong.

Thinking before acting is what makes one neurotic; ie. score high on the neuroticism scale, since "neurotic" and "psychotic" aren't official terms anymore.

Indeed. It makes them strive to grow up, grow strong, and make sure nobody can do to them what they can do to others.
— baker

That's a jaundiced view of human nature and, quite frankly, having seen many children grow up, I have yet to encounter this phenomenon unless a child was abused or neglected in some way.

Or maybe you're just blind to how humans work; or pretending to be thusly blind. Don't you repudiate it, such blindness is an important psychological asset.

Bad day?

You silly. Are you really so limited that you cannot envision that someone might have a view of a matter whereby this view is not limited or defined by their personal experience or emotions, but is, instead, a well thought-out view?

The point is not that the GR will fix the world. The point is it can be a useful frame, a teaching aid, or a navigation point.

For what? World peace? Feeling good about oneself no matter what? For what?

You yet need to show that the GR is a better theory of motivation than any other, such as adherence to rules (and threat of punishment for breaking them), or fear of God's punishment, and that it brings about better results than any other theory or more consistently.

I think this is the nub of it. There are no different cultural interpretations I know of where murdering or thieving or lying are considered cool. — Tom Storm

Of course there are, depending on who it is that should be killed, stolen from, or lied to.

Several nations now believe that it would be good to annihilate the Russians and take their land and natural resources. And these people see absolutely nothing "uncool" about it.

So, I have this question: "Is there any meaning talking about 'materialism' to materialists, since they can't see or think that there's anything else than matter, anyway?" — Alkis Piskas

Well, there is a meaning to such talking, if wasting time qualifies as "meaning" ...

Beware: Mainstream psychology has a definitive answer to your question: you're simply depressed. The normal way of being human is not to think about things too deeply, but to just go on with life as if all was well.

Did Dr Johnson refute Berkeley or just hurt his foot? — Edmund

For that we'd need to show that his foot really hurt. That he wasn't just imagining it.

Is contempt for death (or maybe bravery in the face of death) a virtue? It's been portrayed as admirable, at least, even into modern times. — Ciceronianus

Not just any death. In some cultures, it is valued to have a "good death". For a soldier, that means dying in combat.

There is something virtuous, or at least admirable, about facing the inevitable without care or with a laugh. Certainly that was the case with the Romans. I wonder if that's the case because bravery is admired or useless misery and weakness despised. — Ciceronianus

From a brief overview article:

Solon concludes his speech to Croesus telling him that a man can be defined fortunate when he is in good health, feels no pain, has descendants and has a good death.
Good death is intended as fulfilling, the exitus of a life marked by health and vigor (2).
A more specific definition of death can be found in Plato’s Phaidrus, in which the philosopher describes this event as the separation or detachment of the soul from the body, incorporating the consideration of a good death in the State’s interest (3).
In a society that rewarded vigor and strength, sick people weren’t given any regard or respect (4).
/.../
The connection between virtue and happiness represents the core around which Stoicism spins: only by being virtuous a precondition of happiness can be assumed, and when one cannot achieve virtue, one should give up on life. Therefore, suicide is right, as we can read in Seneca’s works regarding the topic.
/.../
The article shows how the word euthanasia is often subject to undue references to the ancient world.
As a matter of fact, the concept of “good death” (the etymological meaning of the word “euthanasia”) did not imply the current idea of the term, which is the request by a subject to a third person (usually a physician) to be helped to die in a worthy way, without pain; a good death was a heroic and valiant death in the battlefield whilst looking for one’s glory.
With the birth of the polis many things changed and the concept of “good death” is perceived as a noble death for ones’ homeland with the help of compatriots and not as the heroic death of one individual (27, 28).
From the concept of "good death" in the ancient world to the modern concept of "euthanasia"

There's plenty of references in the article.

For the admiration of skill and stamina within a context that safeguards against what would occur in real life combat where nothing is barred. For example, when someone falls to the ground in a boxing match they're left alone and helped out after a few seconds - rather than having their skull pounded into the hard ground by the opponent (which, for example, happened to a friend of mine in high school when I wasn't there; fortunately resulted in nothing worse than a broken nose). Wanting to see the latter would be bloodlust. Not wanting to see it occur would be an absence of bloodlust. — javra

For the admiration of skill and stamina, one can also watch ballet, or breakdancing, or do gardening. Etc.

Watching fights that don't go and end the way they would "in the real world" -- what is that but bloodlust in a "safe context"? It's a way to vicariously give oneself hope that "all will be well despite the fighting"; it's indulging in the fantasy that one can engage in a fight and come out unharmed. It's an artifical way to create a feeling of safety for oneself in a world that one perceives as dangerous.

I'm referring to using you-language, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message

One uses you-language when one states one's feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions about other people (or things) as if those feelings, beliefs, values, opinions, impressions would be objective facts about the other person (and that the other person is wrong, bad, evil, delusional if they don't see themselves (or some thing) that way).

I-language:
"I like you."
"I don't like you."
"I appreciate how you painted that picture."
"I don't appreciate how you painted that picture."

You-language:
"You're a good person."
"You're a bad person."
"You painted a good picture."
"You painted a bad picture."

I don't have a problem with this since I am not a philosopher, but I wonder if it counts as philosophy. When you think about the impressive jargon and thought games inherent in, for instance, phenomenology - all that Epoché and lifeworld hermeneutics, this seems somewhat lacking in depth... or pretention... — Tom Storm

Yeah, better to just be a patronizing, bossy asshole, right.

And if one wanted to, one may add the crucial difference that in this case the evidence of cure seems to be absent ... — Apollodorus

The irony just goes on and on!

Thanks. Yes, spiritual can be problematic. As you say there are so few simple words that can be used as an alternative in a plain English discussion of such matters. — Tom Storm

"Spiritual" is a fitting word. It conveys the vagueness of the "spiritual" endeavor and sets the task at hand, namely to clarify things for oneself.
It's good that "spiritual" has so much baggage; this way, one at least stands a chance to figure things out on one's own. Otherwise, "spirituality" would be yet another zombification activity.

One of my teams at work is called Spiritual Care and while that might sound delightfully vague, it does significant work helping people who are sick and in palliative care make sense of death and loss and find hope and connection to others.

Is this "Spiritual Care" mandatory?

The examples I gave dealt with limitations on ethical treatment of others resulting from lack of insight into their capabilities. — Joshs

But the problem with this is that when one lacks the insight into another's capabilities, one doesn't know thusly, one doesn't know one lacks said insight. Instead, one is convinced that one already has the right insight into another's capabilities..

"You are inferior, and therefore, I can beat you, I can take from you, I can kill you, and you must let me do so".

It's an approach to ethics that externalizes the standard of ethical behavior, making it the responsibility of the other for how others treat them. It says, "You are responsible for how I treat you. If you want to be treated better, you need to prove to me that you deserve it."

It is saying treat others with the consideration you would appreciate - honour their preferences as you would want them to honour yours. — Tom Storm

Do that, and you will be perceived as a pansy, and exploited.

If you keep kosher then you may need to understand that your neighbour keeps halal. The GR is therefore not asking you to expect your neighbour to accept kosher but to accept that they have their own observances... — Tom Storm

So the GR is asking you, in the case where you're black and have a KKK neighbor, to accept his "observances"?

True. There are no guarantees in life, period. — Tom Storm

Then why bother with the GR?

I think the GR mainly applies to the self as a guiding principle

That's bizarre. Only the neurotic think before they act. The normal person is always sure they have done no wrong and can do no wrong.

When kids misbehave to others there's a famous phrase parents tend to use - "How would you like it if they did that to you?" I've generally found kids get this formulation of the GR instantly. — Tom Storm

Indeed. It makes them strive to grow up, grow strong, and make sure nobody can do to them what they can do to others.

What I like about the GR is that it is an invitation to see the rights of others as inviolable.

Provided those others are, to begin with, in accordance with one's preferences. If they're not, their "rights" deserve to be violated.
People who champion the Golden Rule always find a way around it.

If so, nirvana can only be arrived at by accident and not deliberately. — Agent Smith

No wonder most people don't even try.

It's not hard to understand - many artists do mainstream, compromised work for the money and exposure. This often annoys and frustrates because anything they might want to do with a richer imaginative vision is simply a risk and unlikely to sell. Audiences are frustrating and this often breeds contempt for the stuff which sells. — Tom Storm

In that case, those artists are confused, to say the least. They want to make money with their art (and a lot of money, at that), and they want it all on their terms. Hm. That's an enormous sense of entitlement. Nobody gets to make money that way, not even mobsters.

Let me ask you and other doubters here: why do you think there are such things as term limits or division of power in modern democracies, if not to control for such a risk? — Olivier5

To give the impression that we're in a democracy; or "so that others may get a chance as well".

Take Erdogan: he started as a democrat and ends as a tyran. Same with Bonaparte, or the French socialists in the 90s, or the Lula administration in Brasil. — Olivier5

None of those were goody two-shoes prior to their ascension to power.
If anything, it seems more likely that one needs to be "corrupt" in order to seek and obtain a position of power to begin with.