And being a huge fan of Schopenhauer's estimation of things — schopenhauer1

A huge fan of his trust-fund lifestyle. It's easy to be pessimistic when one doesn't have to work to pay one's bills!

It sounds like you’re seeing philosophers as advocating a way of life and then falling short of this ideal in their own life. — Joshs

This is what it looks like, yes. But I make no claim about their intentions in this discrepancy; in fact, their intentions in this discrepancy is what I want to understand to begin with.

But I would argue the central task of a philosophy is like that of a scientific theory, to present a model of the way things are.

A model of the way things are -- for whom?

It would hardly be a first that someone presents a model of the way things are -- but which _other_ people, or _only some categories of people_ are supposed to believe.

If a philosopher seems to fall short of what their philosophy argues for, I suggest it is not because they are hypocrites or have somehow forgotten what they have written, but reflects the limitations of their philosophy.

I find this too hard to believe. I don't think it is possible to write a philosophical text, publish it (leaving aside for the moment the shenanigans surrounding the publication of some texts), without the author being aware that there are some, perhaps serious problems with what he has just presented.

What? Does Trump(ism) not capture perfectly the essence of the American spirit, or at least the spirit of those Americans who actually vote or otherwise have the say?

Karl Rahner proposed the (rather scandalous) idea of the ‘anonymous Christian’: — Wayfarer

A perfect combination of pity and contempt!

The whole of Christian existentialism is about you and God alone. The other persons religious beliefs, if any at all, shouldn't matter. — Dermot Griffin

And yet all that anyone has ever heard about the topic "God", one has heard from other people.

Even those people who have epileptic seizures and interpret the visions they have in those seizures as "God is speaking to me" are still working with whatever they have about the topic "God" from other people.

Even Kierkegaard was working only with what he heard other people say on the topic "God".

Why "a year"? It's quite evident everyday, all day, even on this thread. You believe Bank/Tax Fraudster & Criminal Defendent-1 has a snowball's chance in hell to be reelected, baker? Yeah, I guess innumerates follow "the polls" they like. — 180 Proof

Actual elections are not always in line with the previous polls. Surprises have been known to happen.

I suppose you just have more faith in the American people than I do.

You're doing the exact same thing the Trumpistas & co. are doing: blame others, place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on the other person.

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.
— baker

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

But if that's your indirect way of saying it is not meant as an insult, ok. — Tom Storm

If I want to insult someone, I make that clear.

Did I say I am the boss and define all the terms? Or even anything close to that?

Of course, via the language you use. I have brought this up with you at least once before (as well as with some other posters). And I wouldn't bring it up, if this weren't a philosophy forum, and if you wouldn't work in some counselor capacity. I presume you had to be professionally trained in different styles of communication, and so you should know what I'm talking about.

This posted here from another thread:

I don't think you could blame the monks who ended up beaten to death in fights over nominalism versus realism of being guilty of affectation. Even less the people who were tortured to death over questions surrounding transubstantiation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Perhaps this is why people nowadays can get away with affectation -- because there is no you-shall-burn-at-the-stake-for-heresy attached.

But this isn't the complete story. It comes at the cost of no longer identifying with all that is healthy, good, beautiful and pleasurable in life. How many of us would give up good food, beautiful women, a big library and a great music collection for a life in the monastery ? — Sirius

Probably not many, because life is still far too easy and far too good for most people to become radical.

Those who experience the diminishing returns in the pursuit of the proverbial "eating, drinking, and making merry", might begin to question whether said pursuit is worth it.

What is even more terrible is this spiritual tradition sets one up for a lifetime battle against oneself. It's a cult of self-overcoming, rooted in self-hatred, unrealistic goals and struck by a fear of relapse into all that enables one to identify with other human beings, i.e our innate weaknesses.

This is a projection of yours.
But I suppose that unless you have personally experienced the above-mentioned diminishing returns, you probably won't be able to relate to those who do.

Sorry for not being a guru. I'm like you all.

You don't say.

Why don't you talk to nonbelievers who are literate in a religion or several religions and / or theology? They're not hard to find. — 180 Proof

They are hard to find. Well, depends on one's standards.

For example, I know of even university professors of Buddhology who were also "practicing" Buddhists and who distanced themselves from Buddhism, but who nevertheless have holes in their knowledge of Buddhism that even I at my level can notice.

What I have noticed consistently is that the belief system of "unbelievers" or "former believers" tends to reflect first and foremost their relatively solid and secure (upper) middle class socio-economic status, rather than some profound insight into religions or life.

That may well be true. But what are you counting as a religious problem? — Tom Storm

Whatever my religious problem was at the time.

What is the secular thinker underestimating - the emotional support; the explanatory power; the metaphysical explanation, the meaning of religon?

The cunning. The tenacity. The mental and physical toughness. The bad faith. The wealth. The socio-economic power.

The following is not a boundary, it's a sneering jibe. — Tom Storm

And you are the boss, you define all the terms, right.

Yeah, but calling out stupid does. — 180 Proof

We'll see that in about a year.

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticise. Don't you see the danger in that?
— baker

I don't see how that cliche applies to this example. — Tom Storm

*sigh*

And what does this have to do with our discussion?

I'm telling you my reasons for what I'm telling you. As opposed to the condescension you accuse me of.

Where have I interpreted deeds and intentions of Trump voters? Where is this even coming from?

Your words.

E.g.

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue — Tom Storm

On a separate vein, some time ago I saw interviews with Trump supporters. Most of them said they would vote for him again because of his significant achievements and his great policies. Not one of them could name any. They just liked him. Is this because they are dumb, or has the American system (education/media/corporate influence) failed people, making them rubes and willing victims of a demagogue? We can't use CBT for political stupidity can we? — Tom Storm

This is an excellent point. It used to be that people looking for spiritual truths would abandon everything they had to live with some great teacher. Rigorous study, ascetic practices, long periods of meditation — these are the norm in the Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions.

To be sure, these traditions allowed for other roads to enlightenment or spontaneous revelation. But in general, the truth required a great deal of study and praxis to ascertain.

But now the general take is: "beliefs about the most central questions if what being is and how we should live should be summarizable in five minutes." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes. It's a trend toward infantilization and consumerism. And a victim mentality.

Saint Augustine makes a related point, which is that we can never learn anything without trusting others. Our parents might not be our real parents. Our kids might not be our real kids, they could have been switched at birth. Anything we are taught could be bunk.

And yet, if you don't put effort in, assuming your physics textbook might be able to shed some light on the world for you, then you'll never get anywhere in understanding the subject. The same is true for theology, which is up with philosophy for most abstract disciplines.

Of course. But it's not simply blind trust. If one is going to even have a conversation with another person, then one should be able to act in good faith to begin with. Otherwise, why even begin talking to them?

You said that you can ask questions about karma that nobody can answer. So far, you haven't asked any such question that I can't answer. I actually want to see someone ask a question about karma that I couldn't answer.

That you're not satisfied with my reply is really neither here nor there, because I'm not trying to convince you. I can tell that you only have a cursory knowledge of karma doctrines, and I'm not going to ask you to commit to a serious study of them and wait for a reply. And I certainly don't have the time to go through them with you step by step.

Study up on karma doctrines, and then see what questions remain. I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you.

Yes, religions tend to perpetuate and promote 'communities' of magical thinkers who talk to – placate – ghosts. — 180 Proof

Heaven knows I'm no fan of religion. But I think many atheists, agnostics, and humanists grossly understimate it. As far as I'm concerned, these atheists etc. have nothing helpful to offer me as far as dealing with a religious problem is concerned. There was a time when I sought help for my (meta)religious insecurity, and the atheists etc. had nothing to offer me. Other than displaying their massive ignorance of the religions they so eagerly denounced. Well, it's easy to dismiss something one barely knows!

It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well.
— baker

What a sneering and insinuating response. Thanks. — Tom Storm

Oh Jesus. I have simply identified a boundary. Identifying a boundary is not "sneering and insinuating".

where does 'some' knowledge become sufficient for you to decide they are true Christians or true Muslims since this seems to be your concern?

Where? In your mind, apparently obsessed with judgment and persecution.

Again:

I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?

It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

It's in the nature of religiosity that different people will have varying degrees of knowledge of and involvement in their religion.

But the extent of their knowledge of and involvement in their religion becomes relevant if they claim to deserve some kind of special recognition and respect.

As in:

"I'm a superior [member of religion X], while you're only an inferior [member of religion X], therefore, you owe me credence and respect."

or

"I left [religion X], because I have supreme insight into its workings, I know the truth about it, and you must believe me."

In the former case, it's the standard internal hierarchy in religion, where it goes without saying that if one is newer, younger, or female, one automatically owes special credence and respect to the others who have been members longer, who are older, or male.

This is also the case in religious supremacism. Such as when the majority religion expects special respect from the minority religion or from those with no religious affiliation.

In the latter case, the often unstated assumption when someone leaves a religion is that they have superior insight into the workings of their now former religion, or that leaving religion was a good thing. Such as you here:

Nevertheless, the secular community contains numerous members who were once devout. They found their way out. — Tom Storm

It is in such cases that the person's actual knowledge of the religion becomes relevant for how one will interact with such a person.

We find out about the nature of the rest of world and the extent of our knowledge by our interaction with it, rather than by maintaining, without adequate evidence, that our interaction with it is inherently deficient. — Ciceronianus

Esp. older generations seem to have been taught that they are inherently deficient, by default. The belief that we are born bad and defective and yet need to be corrected.

One may notice problems, but why extrapolate from them the notion that such problems are ubiquitous, regardless of considerations of context? — Ciceronianus

I can think of two groups of reasons for this:

1. An authoritarian sense of entitlement; extreme self-confidence; the belief that when one opens one's mouth, the Absolute and Objective Truth comes out.

2. Existential dread; anxiety; the craving to make oneself feel less afraid, less vulnerable, and so taking for granted that everyone is experiencing that same anxiety as well, that this anxiety is part of "human nature".

Specific examples from the last 200 years please. — Joshs

Do you really think Levinas actually approached other people in daily life as if he was "infinitely responsible" for them? That he actually felt indebted to just everyone he met simply because that other person was "an other"?

Nietzsche. Hardly an exemplar of the Übermensch himself.

Pretty much every religious philosopher.

Possible solution to the personal identity problem

The government solves it by issuing a unique personal identification document to every person.
It's how we are formally forced to maintain a personal identity, in real terms.

Just remember, if you fail to pick the right sect of Christianity, you will burn in hell, forever and ever.

This is just a polite way of saying that Buddhism etc. are inferior to Christianity. It's religious imperialism.

I remember some years back reading a heart-breaking letter from Buddhist monks in a Buddhist country about how Christian missionaries are perverting Buddhism and how they manipulate the native people into converting to Christianity.

This post is an attempt to make the argument that the traditions of China and India, namely, Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism are actually great resources of Christian apologetics. Being a Christian, I have come to see the respective systems of thought as preannouncing the message of the gospel in terms of ethical questions about life. — Dermot Griffin

This is the line of reasoning that Christian missionaries in Asia use to convert the native Buddhists, Daoists, and others to Christianity.

They tell the Buddhists that God sent them the Buddha to prepare them for the message of Christianity. And then they offer them food, medicines, jobs -- in exchange for conversion.

@180 Proof
@universeness
Burning witches won't help you.

What I see is someone who indulges in regular put downs of others, who is persistently cynical about people's motivations, then somewhat hypocritically likes to take a critical stance towards members for their perceived adverse perspectives. — Tom Storm

That's what the bad faith in which you tend to approach communication makes you see.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
— baker

Why the Nietzsche?

Critics of Trump & co. often become exactly like those they criticize. Don't you see the danger in that?

When Trump or someone like him wins again, it will be at least in part because his critics were playing on his terms.

Now, if you want to construct an entirely seperate, speculative narrative about behind the scenes at media interviews and suggest that in some way journalism misrepresented the Trump people, I'm not interested, since you cannot demonstrate this to be the case and you seem to be asserting it entirely for rhetorical effect.

I'm actually expecting you to empathize with the Trumpistas.

I don't think that in some way journalism misrepresented the Trump people, but I think you here as a critic of Trump (as well as many others critics of Trump) are being too simplistic in interpreting the words, deeds, and intentions of the Trumpistas. And being so simplistic about them doesn't help in changing them of winning against them. Even though you nominally play for the opposition against Trump, you're actually helping team Trump. This is its own kind of ... well, stupidity, with horrible prospects. This is what happens when one allows one's disgust to get the upper hand.

Gotcha. Personally, I don't think freedom can be reduced to "the feeling of volition." At the very least, such a view would seem to require multiple disjunct types of freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Freedom is about "freedom from something" and "freedom to do something". This doesn't have to do with "free will".

Slaves presumably experience the sensation of volition the same way as non-slaves, and yet there is still an important sense in which they aren't "free" in the same ways. The same goes for alcoholism, drug addiction, etc., which don't have any effect on the sensation of volition.

Sure. Someone with less information, less knowledge, fewer resources will just have it harder to carry out their decisions. Making a decision in free will and the ease of acting on said decision are two different things.

That seems plausible to me. But even if some sort of substance dualism were the case, it would still seem to me that what determines our choices must exist before we choose in order for our choices to be truly "ours." So, even if I entertain the idea of "nonphysical souls," compatibalism seems more right.

We don't talk about "love" or "friendship" or "democracy" etc. on the level of cells and tissues, as if "love" etc. would exist on the level of biochemistry. But why do this when it comes to free will?

Do you think it would make sense to test someone whether they love you or believe in democracy by measuring their brain waves or some such?

You clearly have a favorable bias for those who "leave religion".
— baker

If true, is that relevant? — Tom Storm

It is, because it means you're not open to discussion of this topic. And it's predictable that it probably won't go well.

The focus is on people who claim to have been (devoted) members of some religion (which they specifically name), who named themselves with the name for the members of said religion, who say that they have "left" said religion, and who exhibit a poor knowledge of said religion's doctrine.
— baker

Are you saying that people are only real Christians or Muslims if they have a extensive knowledge of the religion's doctrine? I would think then that only a tiny percentage of believers qualify as 'real'.

The extent of a person's knowledge of their religion's doctrine only becomes relevant for other people when that person claims to be a representative of said religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

Generally people leave religions because they don't believe in god. Knowledge of the religion may not be a factor.

How can someone believe in God in any intelligible manner unless they have at least some knowledge of theistic religious doctrine??
If they don't have such knowledge, but still claim to "believe in God", then such a "belief in God" is likely wishful thinking, idiosyncratic. It's no surprise then if such a person "leaves the religion".

Will you also argue, by extension, that one can't be a true atheist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god?

No. But one can't be an anti-theist unless one has extensively studied the arguments for and against god.

Can one believe in democracy unless someone has studied the history of democracy and has a working knowledge of political science and alternative governments?

I expect that someone who claims to "believe in democracy" has at least studied up on what "democarcy" means, and related themes, and preferrably, can discuss the topic.

I repeat my question - How do we determine if someone is a real Christian or not?

It's mostly irrelevant, until someone claims to be a representative of a religion or claims to have been such a representative in the past, and that as such, deserves special recognition and respect.

It's like with any other claim of proficiency in something. If, for example, someone claims to "speak French", and then it turns out that they know only a few phrases in French, it's only natural to be skeptical about whatever claims they make about French.

You can't will away an adverse reaction. — Hanover

But you can will to stop a bad habit.

For crying out loud, in that video with Matthew Perry, that other man was just giving him well-meaning common-sensical advice, not claiming to offer a scientific explanation.

When one sees another person in trouble, one doesn't tell them, "Oh yes, chances are you're doomed and science confirms it!"

Scientific textbooks and terms are not authorities. — praxis

No, people just treat them as such.

1. Karma and rebirth are supposedly based on cause & effect. If true, there's a mountain of causes that, at death, would logically result in rebirth that is practically indistinguishable from the previous life. Yet the story goes that if you do a lot of dirty deeds in your life you will be reborn as a dirty cockroach or something. That doesn't make sense if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. It would be like I'm a human being one instant and the next instant I spontaneously turn into a dirty cockroach, just because I stole a loaf of bread or whatever. I should be reborn the same human bread stealing dirty deed doer that I was the instant before death, if karma and rebirth are based on cause & effect. — praxis

Given that in life you also do a lot of other things, their effects mitigate eachother. If you once stole a loaf of bread, but you later regret it, work hard, earn money, and with it buy a hundred loaves of bread and give them to charity, then having stolen that one loaf once can be mitigated and then some.

What is said to be imponderable is knowing in advance what consequence some particular action you did now will have in the future, given that you will also do a lot of other things and their effects will mitigate eachother. But right now, we don't know what other things you'll also do, hence the imponderability.


What you describe above is more like the Jain doctrine, a type of karmic fatalism. Hindu or Buddhist doctrines of karma are different.

If you ask a "book reader" about this they will say that such things are imponderable, or to put it another way, the book they read from is fiction.

Instead of freestyling your ideas about karma and rebirth, why not read some standard texts about it?

When Does Philosophy Become Affectation?

When it's done for ideological purposes.

Apart from your disagreement with Descartes, how pervasive a problem do you see this kind of thinking as being within the contemporary philosophical community as a whole , or the history of philosophy?
— Joshs

Descartes isn't called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" for nothing. — Ciceronianus

The historical reception of Descartes would be comical, if it wouldn't be so sad and had such enormous consequences.

Even though Descartes made it clear that he wrote his philosophy specifically for the purpose of providing ready-made arguments that Roman Catholics can use for the purpose of converting non-Catholics (which is also the reason why the RCC allowed the publishing of his texts at all), he was somehow received into the history of philosophy as some kind of poor guy who was just trying to find his way while the mean mean RCC was breathing down his neck (and is thus eminently suitable to be considered the "Father of Modern Philosophy").

Instead of writing him off as yet another religious preacher, he was embraced as some kind of beacon of wisdom even by atheists. Well, apparently he and the RCC succeeded in their intents ...

I don't think what I refer to is hypocrisy. But I think there's more involved than a "trial run" by the curious. I do think it's peculiar, and aberrant in a way, requiring an explanation. I'm wondering if it's a kind of contrivance on the part of those who engage in it. — Ciceronianus

I tend to think of philosophy as a protracted means of finding ways for handling disagreement. Because all the things that philosophy talks about have their relevance in reference to handling disagreement. People keep disagreeing on what exists and what doesn't exist, what is true and what isn't true, how we can be sure that we know something, what is good and what is bad -- all these themes are covered by the standard disciplines of philosophy.

Disagreement isn't something trivial, it often has disastrous consequences, so it has to be taken seriously. But a philosophically inclined person just isn't able to handle disagreement in the "confident" way that the average person can. So a philosophically inclined person will think about the disagreement and try to find ways to make sense of it, or to even overcome it.

Of course, these attempts can then get momentum, get a life of their own, and people lose sight of the big picture why they're doing philosophy to begin with. That's when philosophy becomes the ivory tower, so alien to life as it is usually lived.

Reality is distressing for those who expect fantasy. For those familiar with reality, reality is "normal", "average" and/or expected. Get a grip. — LuckyR

Really? You can easily get a grip on being robbed, raped, betrayed by your boss, husband, your house being burnt down and you being falsely accused of arson with the intention to collect insurance money and imprisoned? Things like this are "average", "normal" to you, and you have a grip on them?

Several of your quick answers to my questions from the OP imply that a "perfect" knowledge is possible, and desirable. And that anything that doesn't reach that perfection causes pain. Is that really what you think? — Skalidris

Your OP is implying that.
You started a thread about Weltschmerz. It seems you were saying that people feel Weltschmerz when they have unrealistic, idealistic ideas about human nature, and I and several posters have read it that way.

That doesn't matter, because free will isn't wisdom, omnipotence, or omniscience.
Not sure what the relevance of this is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

When people talk about lack of free will, they're usually actually talking about lack of wisdom, lack of omniscience, or lack of omnipotence.

(Or, in Libet's absurd case, a person would have to be without the ability to plan and act accordingly in order to qualify as having free will.)

So what does have bearing on free will?

Only whether the person feels they have free will or not.

Did the shift in Western culture that allowed women to start being educated in large numbers not affect their freedom? Does being raised in a religious cult not effect freedom? Are the characters in 1984 not made less free by the omnipotent manipulation of information by the state?

In some of the above cases, free will is affected only in the sense that people were directly taught and internalized things to the effect that they are deterministic automatons, or that whatever they do is guided and decided by some "higher power".

Knowledge, information, and resources only define and limit options on which to think or act, but they don't limit free will.

Perry simply pointed out there is empirical evidence supportive of alcohol's measurable effect on people's personalities and Hitchens ignores the science in an effort to support his poliltical narrative. — Hanover

Because the important thing is to be scientifically correct, even if this kills people, riiight.

It's better for a heavy drinker to think, "Once I've had the first drink I am powerless over my drinking and I will drink until I pass out". Because being scientifically correct is all that matters. Riight.

If that heavy drinker were to say to himself, "Who says that I have to keep drinking just because I've had a few drinks? I should at least try to stop" -- that would be an utter abomination in the eyes of science!!

No, there actually are studies on animals that show the addictive quality of chemical substances, which control for social pressures related to the addiction, since animals aren't subject to human social pressures. — Hanover

I cancelled my subscription to rat psychology long ago.


(Tellingly, I couldn't even find a reference to "rat psychology" within five minutes of googling. "Rat psychology" is a derogatory term referring to an uncritical use of the findings in experiments on animals (often rats) to humans.)

But what about situations where we have been manipulated? In those cases, it seems like we are making a free choice at the time, but we come to find out that we made choices we otherwise wouldn't have. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That doesn't matter, because free will isn't wisdom, omnipotence, or omniscience.

Of course it's possible that with more knowledge, more resources, one would make different choices. But this has no bearing on whether one has free will or not.