If there is no such causal link then the argument is unjustified — Ghost Light

Indeed. Again, if we think of God as a capitalist businessman, the Abrahamic narrative and the way things are in the world (with all the pain, suffering, injustice) make sense.

Also, if we see God as a tribalist, preferring one tribe over others, so that good is whatever is good for the chosen tribe (even if that means death to other tribes).

It's not clear there is any reason why we shouldn't view God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist.

I was talking about the empathy and compassion that can come form facing adversity together, not hatred and contempt. — Janus

You mean like this?

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

Well, that advice was stupid from the start since it has also always been acknowledged that the vaccines are only about 90% effective.

But not in the popular social narrative. If people who are so enthusiastically in favor of covid vaccination would have really acknowledged what you're stating above, then whence their hatred and contempt for everyone who doesn't fall in line with their enthusiasm?

From that it follows that there can be no guarantee that you are not infectious even if vaccinated. That advice is already changing due to the extreme infectiousness of the Delta variant.

But what isn't changing is the enthusiasm of the pro-vaccers, nor their hatred and their contempt.

As to your road rage example, I haven't said that everyone gets vaccinated on account of altruistic motives, so it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing against there.

The point about altrusitic motives for vaccination was in the context of another discussion with other posters earlier in the thread who are on a crusade against those who aren't all that enthusiastic about covid vaccination. The argument of those crusaders is like the one I quoted in the beginning of this post. "If you don't get vaccinated, you're selfish" is one of their points.

You said earlier: "Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR." and now you say
I wasn't generalizing human nature. I'm saying that the people who do as described above (from aggressive drivers to employers who have their employees work in unsafe conditions) often happen to be the same people who are enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine.
— baker

Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself and that the first statement is a generalization about human nature?

?
I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with. I do not believe that humans are, by nature, selfish, nor that they are, by nature altruistic. I think they are strategists.

I object to the idea that people get vaccinated out of concern for others; but this doesn't mean I think they get vaccinated out of selfish reasons. Like I said, I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with.

The popular social narrative about covid vaccination would have us believe that we should get vaccinated out of concern for others, and that those who don't get vaccinated are selfish, while those who do are acting altruistically. Yet when you look at so many vaccinated people and so many enthusiastic supporters of covid vaccination, you can see that they are hardly people who can be described as "caring for others". So it's hard to believe that they got vaccinated out of concern for others.

The popular social narrative about covid vaccination is one thing, and people's actual reasons for vaccination are another matter. Yet some people love to hide behind the popular social narrative about covid vaccination. Virtue signalling and white-knighting and whatnot.

If all you're willing or able to do is engage in politically correct watercooler talk, then what on earth are you doing at a philosophy forum??!

However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

See, this is goodness, in every respect:

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

This is true goodness. True goodness. True human goodness. The role model of human goodness you are.

In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan. — Alkis Piskas

No, this is backwards. We start off with a definition of God, and God is, by definition, omnibenevolent. We then proceed to interpret the world in line with that definition.

But we don't have to go that far. Here's a more "earthly" example. Quite often, it is necessary to punish children, always in good will, so that they can really undestand the severity of a mistake they made. However, in doing this, we appear to be "mean" to them. Yet, they usually understand later that we did that in good will and it was a correct decision.

Anything can be justified that way. Anything.


Also, I don't know if there exists a study on this, but I bet that children are punished the most for not respecting certain societal taboos.

Correct. However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

This is vague.

Christians can argue that God is always good to people, and that this also means he is good to those who he condemns for eternity. Christians were burning witches "for their own good". The Nazis believed it was for the own good of Jews that they be annihilated.

And so on. There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.

Hardly any term is as vague as "good".

People need to learn how to integrate philosophy with everyday life. It may not always be easy, but if philosophical reasoning and contemplation result in greater clarity of mind, power of discernment, better understanding of others, greater awareness of environmental issues, etc., then it can't be a bad thing.

By modern standards, what would Plato be, in terms of socioeconomic theory? Probably not a socialist, but a capitalist. Can we be reasonably sure that he wouldn't support Trump? Or Hitler? Remember, in ancient Greece, they practiced selective infanticide; unfit or unwanted babies were removed from society. And that was deemed good.

They are indices of socioeconomic success.
Why should wisdom and socioeconomic success be seen as necessarily mutually exclusive?

I think DK itself is subject to the DK effect and is cheerfully misapplied to many things. — Tom Storm

Too few people discussing DK have read the original study, or at least the Wiki article on it.

The title of the original study was:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

and this is the salient point of the DK effect. Lack of competence can lead to inflated self-assessments of one's competence.

That one cannot have expertise in every field is a given. But people differ in how they interpret and handle this lack of competence (in themselves and in others).

Note also that the DK effect is not universal across cultures, but that some cultures (ie. Muricans) are more prone to it than others.


We had a nice example of it a while back when a poster posted a thread about ad hominems, asking questions about it. Some posters suggested some literature on the topic, for the OP's questions are readily addressed in it. But the OP refused to read that literature, and claimed that suggesting that they read that was an ad hominem.

He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness. — javi2541997

If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise?

Buddhism isn't viable in this world. If the wiseness of a religion is to be measured by how well its adherents do socioeconomically, then Christianity is certainly wiser.

And the best philosopher is a dead philosopher, eh?

https://vaers.hhs.gov/ — Isaac

You're lucky to have at least that. Where I live, one is on one's own. It takes one doctor to diagnose covid by symptoms, or a covid death by symptoms (no test and no autopsy required), but a medical board must convene before they even consider that something could be the side effect of a covid vaccine. You could die from the damn thing, and it still wouldn't be counted among "serious negative side effects of the covid vaccine".

How can person A be giving an account of something that is true yet be a liar simultaneously? — Benj96

By 1. not knowing that it is true, and 2. by speaking with the intention to deceive.

It's the intention to deceive that makes something a lie.

An unusual position... — Isaac

Not at all. Issues of social psychology need to be taken into account. In times of crisis, people tend to give up critical thinking. It's not clear for how many people this applies, but some of those for whom it does apply are extremely vocal and influential. Resisting those people can result in short-term and long-term harm for the resisters.

There are also issues of the placebo effect, en masse: If enough people have enough faith in the covid vaccines, the covid vaccines can, in effect, be more safe and more effective than they would be without that faith.

Is it moral to refuse to participate in a mass social delusion, if said delusion can have at least short-term good effects for society at large and for the individual as well?

As has been a theme here, it's a very good public policy bet that mass vaccination will reduce transmission. This doesn't translate into a moral claim that one ought to get vaccinated because an individual has other options which (as current evidence stands) are equally efficacious given known factors of their personal circumstances. — Isaac

These other options are becoming increasingly obsolete, as there is an ever greater need for covid passes, so the trend is to make vaccination something one does in order to get a covid pass. Vaccination is becoming an administrative/bureocratic measure.

And I hate Trump and all who support him. — James Riley

You would be far more convicing if you wouldn't behave exactly like a Trumpista.

And you're just providing yet more evidence for God being a Trumpista.

So, since a person has options as to how they might meet their moral obligations other than by vaccination, I don't see any moral imperative to get vaccinated. I do see a moral imperative to do something to absolve both those duties, but it's not yet demonstrated that that something has to be vaccination. — Isaac

When there is a social stampede, it is one's moral obligation to run with it, even if one sees that the stampede is heading toward a cliff ...

Love, however, can justify hatred. — James Riley

Brilliant. You hate me out of love.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci

And I still won't defend things you merely imagine I said or defend stances you merely imagine I hold.

You don't even care enough to hate me for the things I said. You hate me for the things you imagine I said.
Now that's righteousness! That's what God loves!!!!!

No, no, I want to see it from your point of view. — TheMadFool

Then you'd need to give up anekantavada.

That's why I want to know what your assumptions are.

That anekantavada is a non-viable outlook on life, given that one who practices it will be crushed by other people.

And what is the place of women in all this?
— baker

That would depend on what you mean by that question. — Apollodorus

It's no secret that the Ancient Greeks held a dim view of women.

Personally, I resent the prospect of taking up the study of Platonism, only to discover later on that people like me are by default disqualified from any higher knowledge.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. Plotinus, for example, is not considered as mentally deficient.

If it has the opposite effect, and it impairs you mental faculties, then it is not spiritual advancement. This is why Platonists like Plotinus learned Platonism from a teacher and had his own school. — Apollodorus

Think in terms of surviving in the modern economy and society at large. Here, critical thinking is mostly a hindrance, and goodness (as understood in humanism) is considered naive.
An argument can be made that a person is far better off in life if they think in superficial slogans, soundbites, black and white terms.

I think a key distinguishing factor would be that spiritual advancement is supposed to enhance your mental abilities. — Apollodorus

But enhance them in what way? You're getting into dangerous territory here, the land of "I do yoga in order to improve my business skills".

On this point, Early Buddhism says that all of one's practice is supposed to be done for the purpose of the complete cessation of suffering.

But in Platonism, the goal is what? Seeing God, the One? It seems rather intangible, in comparison to what Early Buddhism promises.

And, in fact, people do experience various degrees of happiness when they practice contemplation or meditation. This is an undeniable fact. So, I can see no reason why people should get attacked for practicing theoria, dhyana, or whatever you want to call it, if they choose to.

On what grounds should philosophy prohibit contemplation and declare it antithetical to philosophy?

It's not clear where this is coming from.

The Buddha in the story did not follow up: " "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one" with "while you are an ignorant clod whose proximity to the temple of the only Truth is a stench in the nostrils of the Creator." — Valentinus

Well, he didn't follow up with that there on the spot, but he elsewhere made very disparaging remarks about people (and that's putting it mildly).

Do you think that because so many religious and other preachers make a point of airing their contempt for other people, this means that a response other than shaking one's head and going one's way is called for?

For Plato,
/.../
But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't make an effort. By definition, the Platonic philosopher is one who loves knowledge and wisdom and actively seeks after it. And as the saying goes, "seek and you shall find" .... :smile: — Apollodorus

And what is the place of women in all this?

Power is a problem only when it is misused. This is why it is important for all philosophers, beginners and experienced, to place themselves in the proper power context vis-a-vis one another.

This is why, traditionally, the cultivation of virtues is a preparatory stage to philosophy proper. — Apollodorus

Okay.

Hatred justifies everything, doesn't it.

See, you're not practicing anekantavada.
Q.E.D.

"I Don't Know How To Explain To You That You Should Care About Other People." Dr. Fauci — James Riley

Neither do I.

The only valid proof is personal experience and this may well be subjective and distinct from other people's. This doesn't necessarily mean it's just imagination. — Apollodorus

When you put it this way, spiritual advancement is sometimes indistinguishable from mental illness. This is cause for alarm.

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.
What a bizarre claim!!
— baker

Why is that so bizarre?

Remember, they sentenced Socrates to death for failing to live up to the religious standards of their jurisdiction.

It is a matter of his rude disregard and intolerance for views on Plato that differ from his own. — Fooloso4

Oh. This seems rather mutual.

Plato bridged the gap between the religion of the masses and the philosophy of the intellectual elite. This is what his theology does. It offers the less spiritually advanced a path to higher intellectual and spiritual experience. — Apollodorus

But he never walked that path himself, did he?

This is crucial, because if he never did what he instructs others to do, then on the grounds of what should we trust him and his advice?

But can atheists do it in a way that will have the same positive, life-affirming results as when religious people contemplate the Forms?
My personal experience is, they can't. Without that religious foundation that had to be internalized before one's critical thinking abilities developed, contemplation of "metaphysical realities" doesn't amount to anything.
— baker

Not religious but moral and intellectual foundation.

But can a person have this moral and intellectual foundation without first being religious?

/.../ If the philosopher is intellectually and spiritually not ready, then they must revert to the preparatory practices, otherwise they are wasting their time.

Indeed. But can one do those preparatory practices outside of religon?

It's amazing how light we can make of life and death ...

The phrase “upward way”, ano odos, indicates that Platonism is a process of vertical progress that takes the philosopher through a hierarchy of realities ranging from the human experience to ultimate truth, and that the means of entering it are righteousness (dikaiosyne) and wisdom (phronesis}, i.e., ethical conduct and spiritual insight. — Apollodorus

There's a similarity to this in Early Buddhism: In Early Buddhism, the basic prongs of the practice are sila, panna, samadhi (morality, wisdom, concentration).

However, if we encounter Gods or other metaphysical entities on our way to the highest, we will know this as and when it happens.

A similar sentiment can be found in Early Buddhism regarding the efficacy of the practice.

Plato has a hierarchy of divine entities consisting in ascending order of (1) Olympic Gods, (2) Cosmic Gods, and (3) Creator God who is the Good or the One. The One is the unfathomable and indescribable Ultimate Reality, and the goal on which the philosopher must fix his mind.

All we need to know about the One is that it has two aspects, one in which it looks as it were “inward” and has no other experience than itself, and one in which it looks “outward” and sees the Cosmos which is the One’s own creation.

A similarity to this can be found in Hinduism. A hierarchy of gods, the notion of a Supreme Deity (I'm a bit rusty on this by now).

If one is not religious or does not believe in the Gods, one obviously need not worship or pray to them.

What a bizarre claim!!

For example, starting with the astronomical facts, if you are facing north, you have the Sky above and the Earth below, the setting Moon in the west is to your left and the Sun rising in the east is to your right. By picturing that arrangement in your mind, you organize your inner world, and put yourself in touch with a larger reality. The simple acknowledgement of Sky, Earth, Moon, and Sun, already has a psychological and spiritual effect on your psyche.

Yes, similar can be found in Early Buddhism (e.g.).
Further: frames of reference.

In Jungian terms, you may create a mental mandala consisting of an outer circle described by the twelve Olympic Gods representing the heavens with the twelve houses of the zodiac and twelve months of the year. Inscribed in the outer circle, you visualize a square with Sky, Earth, Sun, and Moon on its four sides. Inside the square, you visualize the ocean with the Island of Paradise (the Island of the Blessed) in the center, and think of yourself as being there.

I do not recall hearing about such a thing in any Dharmic religion that I know of, though.

The point I am making is that contemplating the Forms, e.g. the Good or the One, is an essential element of Platonism and Socrates repeatedly speaks of the need for the soul to look at intelligible or metaphysical realities “alone on its own” whilst turning away from the world of appearance (Phaedo 79d). But this is something that actually transcends religion. It is a highly flexible and adaptable procedure that can be practiced by anyone, including atheists and Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, Muslims or Jews, and using cultural elements from any tradition.

Similar can be heard from, say, the Hare Krishnas. I see no point in trying to go into who borrowed (or stole) whose ideas. I also think that the similarities could possibly be only superficial and overrated, and not some kind of evidence that the process is true/real.

The problem appears to be the same as with some other religious martyrs.
If someone is so sure that things are exactly as they should be and that nothing happens without God's will -- then what exactly is going on??

That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
— baker

Yeah, I think curiosity about matters of life and death is lame too. — Tom Storm

The issue was mere curiosity.

Matters of life and death, given that they are matters of life and death, should be approached with the according earnestness, as opposed to treating them as a mere hobby.

You did not list simply disagreeing with the interpretation.
Assuming that criticism is only a result of a bad reaction to a manifestly true account is the rhetoric of an apologist, not of a critical thinker who judges for herself. — Valentinus

The question was how come some people are bothered by Platonism (their extensive critical communications on the topic being evidence of being thusly bothered).

If they are simply disagreeing with the interpretation, why the extensive communication?

I am continually reminded of the story from the Buddha's first encounter with another person after he attained enlightenment. Namely, so the story, after he attained enlightenment, the Buddha wanted to tell people about it. So he told the first person he met on the road, "I am the rightfully self-enlightened one." The man shook his head, said, "May it be so" and went his way.

What I want to know is this: How come more people aren't like this man?

Curiosity. Something to do. The idea galvanises so many wars and conflicts and animates so many internecine feuds, even on these virtual pages. How could one not be intrigued? — Tom Storm

That's lame then, to combine mere curiosity with matters of life and death.
As it is, you appear to rest comfortably in the idea that God is a mere paper tiger.

Are you a theist? I forget.

I believe that if God exists, he is a Trumpista, a Social Darwinist. I guess this makes me a resentful prospective theist.

Are we living in an age of mediocrity?

Clearly not. This age is well below the mean. — Banno

Yay!

I read Christian literature because I was raised with it and I enjoy atheism more the more I understand the true place of Christianity. — Gregory

Indeed, coming to terms with one's past can be a reason to read the Bible (if one was raised Christian).

Can we say than the the Bible can only give us something subjective? — Gregory

That would make it rather useless.