Otherwise I suggest contemplating why you questioned me (not that it's not allowed, hell I encourage it to the fullest, because I always seek to affirm my own abilities by a good challenge) to say "no," to me, or to challenge yourself, or perhaps even both? — Vaskane

Here is a thread that has to do with Jewish people. As an analysis of them and some phenomena related to them, you have been offering the arguments of someone who flat-out denies or ignores what is central to Jewish people, namely, the existence of God and God's revelation to the Jewish people. And who instead, basically, implies that the Jews merely invented their morality and religious doctrine as a reaction to certain challenges.

Does this seem fair to you?

With his analysis of the Jews, Nietzsche is imposing his own atheism on them, taking for granted that atheism is the only correct way to see things.

If anything, this discussion leads me to conclude that the origin of antisemitism is atheism.

Rule number 1: if you want to understand a philosopher -- you need to remove your lens and put theirs on. Otherwise your preconceived notions leave no room for learning. — Vaskane

I don't seek to understand Nietzsche per se. I am skeptical about how relevant his input is to understanding the origin of antisemitism, given that as an atheist, he dismisses the possibility of divine revelation -- all the while proposing to analyze people who believe to have received divine revelation.

Does religion perpetuate and promote a regressive worldview? — Art48

Of course. But the greatest trick that religion ever pulled was making the non-religious believe that the religious actually believe all that they openly profess to believe.

In other words, it's quite naive and wrong to take religious claims at face value. By this it is not meant that they are to be taken "metaphorically". It's that one needs to rethink whether one correctly understood the purpose with with those religious claims were made to begin with.

Can you say some more on this and the role of emotion in reason? — Tom Storm

I think of it this way: emotions are the tl;dr of reason. Or, more nicely: an emotion is a summary of a thought-through stance.

When you think about or study through a topic, you then summarize it, and this summary is then captured in a particular emotion. Later on, you don't revisit your thoughts or your study notes on the topic, you just have an emotion about it.

metaphorically that mental aspect which protects you from living life to the fullest, from taking those risks, breaking out of our comfort zones — Vaskane

This sounds like something from a self-help book.
I have trouble believing that what you're saying is really what Nietzsche meant. It sounds just so plebeian. Do aristocrats really think of themselves in such terms? Do they think of themselves as "living life to the fullest" and "breaking out of one's comfort zone"?

for a responsible drinker being less pissed off and more jovial is not an "illusionary" state. — Outlander

If a person requires to consume particular substances to display or practice certain mental, emotional, and behavioral skills or traits, this means that they are unable to practice those skills or traits *deliberately*. This is a weakness, a disadvantage.

Who would you trust more to access the value of things, your sober self or your drunk self?
— Skalidris

This question reveals a big gap between yourself and the matter at hand. As if 'trust' or 'value' have anything to do with the use of alcohol. — Tom Storm

Of course they do. Although probably not to people who are more emotional than they are philosophical.

To illustrate this difference: I once had a brief exchange with a psychologist who wrote for Psychology Today about gratitude. I struggled to understand his points because he seemed to think that *feeling* grateful is all that matters, and that everything that has to do with *whom* one is grateful to and how one *expresses* one's gratitude are unimportant or tertiary at most. What is more, right away, he accused me of trolling and repeated this several times, in every reply to me.

I think it's absurd to talk about gratitude solely in the framework of how it makes one feel. But apparently for some people, this is entirely enough. How, is beyond me, other than to try to explain it with the difference between emotionalism and philosophy.


I, too, am one of those people who doesn't like alcohol. I don't like the way it goes into my head, I don't like the way it adversely affects my motor skills. It makes me drowsy, sleepy. I'm actually in awe of people who can drink and somehow feel better for doing so, who can "enjoy art" and such better when they are under the influence than sober. To me, alcohol just makes everything flat and makes me bored.

Christianity, became a philosophy of the "weak" because it emphasized humility, charity. It was a sort of philosophy of the slave, and not of the aristocrat which he championed. — schopenhauer1

But then this doesn't take into account, well, to put it in gross terms, the value of "keeping up appearances."

It seems to me that in many religions, there are 1. the things that you're supposed to say, 2. things that you're actually supposed to believe, 3. things you're actually supposed to do, and all three are different. There is an art to reading between the lines.

It's not clear that, for example, the Christian emphasis on humility is supposed to be taken beyond verbal affirmation. Yes, humility should be talked about, it should be preached, but not actually done.

It seems naive to take religious doctrines simply at face value. It often seems they are intended as sand thrown in the eyes of the enemy, or a means to cull the weak (who actually believe the doctrines and try to behave accordingly).

If a religion teaches, for example, humility, does this have any other significance but to paint a particular self-image? It seems more like an act of mimicry, deliberately pretending to be harmless. Or, on the other hand, an attempt to control the other person by (in)directly instructing them to be humble ("_You_ should be humble and let me do whatever I want").

Nietzsche is taking for granted that there actually is no God, right?
And that as such, no religion has ever received any "divine revelation", but instead made its own religous doctrine?

I would suggest, though, that there are other ways of understanding the emergence of the morality of Good and Evil besides that of a weakness or sickness. This implies some sort of pathology or regression occurred in human history with respect to a prior period of a healthy Will to Power. — Joshs

It also implies that a human can and should find ultimate satisfaction in an unending consumption and constant conflict and struggle. Eat, drink, make merry, fight, and never get bored with any of it.

Let me get this straight. You don’t want to single the jews out as the only recipients of discrimination. But you do want to single the jews out in the follow way:

“When one religion claims to have superior knowledge of "how things really are", this is an automatic declaration of war to all other religions.” — Joshs

I'm not even singling them out.
Every religion normally believes it is the superior one, this religious supremacism is not special.
What is rarer is the combination of religious supremacism and national/racist supremacism. Some examples of this are Judaism, some schools of Hinduism, and national Catholicism.


As for my comparison with poor people being discriminated against: How come so few people cry foul when it comes to discriminating against poor people?

Up until the mid 20th century, Jews in the U.S. refused to integrate into social institutions such as country clubs, summer camps and Ivy league schools, and instead founded their own clubs, camps and even schools (Brandeis). Oh wait, that was because they were barred entry into those places. — Joshs

How is that different from the situation for poor people who have been barred from even more places?

In other words, the Jews haven't been the only ones facing that kind of predicament. So it's misleading to single them out, as if everyone else was having a great time.

I'll just repeat: everyone engages in othering. — unenlightened

If only.

In other words, more blaming the victim. — 180 Proof

It would be strange if religions wouldn't fight.

When one religion claims to have superior knowledge of "how things really are", this is an automatic declaration of war to all other religions.

Religions are in constant competition with one another. They differ only in how they engage in that fight. Things just get more bloody the more guns one side has.

Just because the members of two religions aren't currently shooting at eachother doesn't mean they are not at war. What they have is "negative peace", a tense state without open armed combat, but with a war-like mentality of hatred and contempt for the other side.

@schopenhauer1

Washington asserted that every religious community in the United States would enjoy freedom of worship without fear of interference by the government. /.../ — Mount Vernon

But what was the purpose for this state-issued and state-protected religious freedom?

Did Washington believe that all religions are equal, equally true, equally valuable in some profound spiritual way?

Or was the reason for this state-issued and state-protected religious freedom more prosaic, namely, to get the various religions and factions to stop fighting with eachother for supremacy? Given that in those fights, there can be a lot of collateral damage, general civic unrest, etc..

I think it is potentially useful to recognise what oneself and everyone else is doing with our lives and our deaths. — unenlightened

Not everyone engages in othering, though, it doesn't come naturally to all people. This is a problem, for them at least.

It might be possible to do it less vehemently at least, and it might be possible to modify societies so that the fault lines of identity become more blurred.

But to what end?

War and strife are massive mid-term incentives for economic growth, as crude as this sounds.

What point is it to save the body at the cost of destroying the spirit?

People are responsible for their actions — Tzeentch

Responsible to whom?

What is that higher standard? — Paine

Granted, perhaps that higher standard seems to be justified because of the centuries of persecution. Victims tend to be assumed innocent and morally superior.

As I previously observed, your view of history, in this regard, is very selective.

What other religio-ethnic group has been targeted worldwide and for so long as the Jews? They are unique in this regard.

Oh. I have the book in translation in my native language, so that's awkward to backtranslate the terminology. So I looked up some reviews in English that I think are fitting.
Besides, I seem to be the only one here in this thread following this theme. You did say any thoughts on the state of web applications and websites are welcome. Perhaps a separate thread is in order.

People have been killing eachother over religious supremacy for a long time.
The history of antisemitism makes the Jews liable to a higher standard, though.

I am Jewish btw. I have never heard this idea -- that Jews are superior to gentiles -- uttered by anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

I've heard it many times. It's not polite to say it, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews_as_the_chosen_people

If Jews are so superior why are they constantly getting humbled by other nations in the bible?

Presumably other nations are testing them, testing their claim.

Just read it.

Or else, I selected three reviews/summaries:

https://blog.rescuetime.com/digital-minimalism/
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/feature/Digital-minimalism-explained-Everything-you-need-to-know
https://www.samuelthomasdavies.com/book-summaries/business/digital-minimalism/

Is it so hard to understand the visceral reaction that many people have when somebody claims to be superior to them?

But what is your point? — unenlightened

That it is pointless to criticize othering as long as one engages in it oneself, and even profits from it.

Is it? Or is that an act of faith on your part? You put your trust in it being possible without the case being demonstrated. — Banno

When a scientist tells me that "it's all just chemicals/atoms" and apparently expects me to believe it, what are my options?

Elsewhere, I just wrote this:
Odd, isn't it, that when some folk discover that the chair they are sitting on is composed of atoms, and is overwhelmingly space, they sometimes decide that therefore it's no longer really a chair.
— Banno
The same happens when a Chemist claims that
"there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain"
— baker
As if love vanished after such explanations.

I dare you to tell that to a scientist! I double dare you!

What does Cal say, and why do you think it's important? Is it something like, stop scrolling through Instagram and go for a walk instead? — Jamal

Cal Newport is Professor of Computer Science at Georgetown University.

Digital minimalism is a philosophy that helps you question what digital communication tools (and behaviors surrounding these tools) add the most value to your life. It is motivated by the belief that intentionally and aggressively clearing away low-value digital noise, and optimizing your use of the tools that really matter, can significantly improve your life.
/.../
The bottom line of this general thinking is that a simple, carefully curated, minimalist digital life is not a rejection of technology or a reactionary act of skepticism; it is, by contrast, an embrace of the immense value these new tools can offer…if we’re willing to do the hard work of figuring out how to best leverage them on behalf of the things we truly care about.

https://calnewport.com/on-digital-minimalism/

And he wrote a book about it. (Which I actually bought last week, and I rarely buy books. This one's a keeper.)

Notice how I talk about not taking concepts out of their native contexts?
— baker
Oh, yes. How you square this with semantic holism remains unexplained. — Banno

By ignoring your commitment to semantic atomism (or at best, semantic molecularism) ...

Mental (or semantic) holism is the doctrine that the identity of a belief content (or the meaning of a sentence that expresses it) is determined by its place in the web of beliefs or sentences comprising a whole theory or group of theories. It can be contrasted with two other views: atomism and molecularism. Molecularism characterizes meaning and content in terms of relatively small parts of the web in a way that allows many different theories to share those parts. For example, the meaning of ‘chase’ might be said by a molecularist to be ‘try to catch’. Atomism characterizes meaning and content in terms of none of the web; it says that sentences and beliefs have meaning or content independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs.

One major motivation for holism has come from reflections on the natures of confirmation and learning. As Quine observed, claims about the world are confirmed not individually but only in conjunction with theories of which they are a part. And, typically, one cannot come to understand scientific claims without understanding a significant chunk of the theory of which they are a part. For example, in learning the Newtonian concepts of ‘force’, ‘mass’, ‘kinetic energy’ and ‘momentum’, one does not learn any definitions of these terms in terms that are understood beforehand, for there are no such definitions. Rather, these theoretical terms are all learned together in conjunction with procedures for solving problems.

/.../

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/holism-mental-and-semantic/v-1

The other is at least our moral inferior, but at the same time an existential threat. Both aspects are essential for our unity; without the other we fragment into internal conflict. The other necessitates, justifies and takes the blame for the burden of suffering entailed by the individual's subjugation to the group, and there can be no group that is not defined in terms of its other. 'Othering' thus becomes a process, the threat of which controls us. If you demonstrate insufficient revulsion and hatred for the other, you may be seen as, and so become, other yourself. This loss of identity is a fate worse than death. Such a fate worse than death gives rise to the martyr - one who dies to maintain their identity. — unenlightened

Thing is, this othering can go both ways.

Others expect me to stop othering them, but they refuse to stop othering me. What does it matter if I stop othering others if they still other me?

Me neither. I think it clear we do not know what happens when we die. All the rest is story telling.
— Fooloso4

Totally agree; there seems to be no conceivable way to rationally or empirically justify the idea that intellectual intuition can yield propositionally configured knowledge of such things. — Janus

Notice how in all major religions, the religious doctrines are said to be given to mankind by God, or some other supreme being, or by an otherwise uniquely and supremely developed human?

Religious doctrines are always top-down, not bottom-up.

Solved equally well by the understanding that it never truly existed, but only appeared to exist because of identification with phenomena. — Wayfarer

(Quoting it to point it out; yes.)

So wouldn't that give us an account in which the process stoped, as opposed to the substance of body and spirit being split asunder? — Banno

Of course. Here is such an account, in both directions; firstly, how come birth (ie. living bodies) comes about, and then how the process of birth/rebirth stops.

From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

/.../

Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications.
From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness.
From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form.
From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact.
From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving.
From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance.
From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth.
From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html

I am familiar with them too, but I can't say they make sense to me beyond the fact that they are all logically possible in the sense of not being obviously self-contradictory. That said, I think the Buddhist concept on the face of it is the most incoherent. — Janus

Well, what is your source for reading up on rebirth?

The way I've learned it from Early Buddhist sources and Theravada is this: Kamma, therefore, rebirth. If one understands kamma, one will understand rebirth. For some of these schools of Buddhism, a person is a bunch of stuff held together by craving.

My main objection, or more accurately indifference, to the ideas of rebirth or resurrection, is that they have no significance to this life, and I think this life is all that is important, given that anything beyond it can only remain nebulous. — Janus

That's because you have it backwards. Kamma, therefore, rebirth. This is the right order of understanding things.

I agree with this and often say that critical discussion has no place in the contexts of spiritual disciplines and religious practices, and even, as Hadot notes in the kinds of ancient philosophies which consisted of systems of metaphysical ideas meant to support "spiritual exercises". But tell that to the fundamentalists!

In any case, this is a philosophy forum where ideas and arguments are presented for critique, so if people want to present their beliefs and ideas here, they should expect questioning, criticism and disagreement.

I'm rather amazed, though, how philosophers are sometimes willing to bang their heads against walls ...

Is there anything particular about their lifestyles that is unappealing? — TiredThinker

They refuse to integrate into the society they live in, they set themselves apart.

Yes, chosen to carry out the 613 commandments, only 320 of which are applicable without the temple. Chosen to perform such commandments such as placing a mezuzah on one's door. — BitconnectCarlos

Chosen as in "preferred over all others".

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others.
— baker

Not something you'd hear in a synagogue if you ever ventured into one. — BitconnectCarlos

It goes without saying.

Jews are not here to tell everyone else that they should be a Jew. But one can convert to Judaism if they like and are prepared to take on the challenges.

Not everyone can convert to Judaism, or at least not to just any school of Judaism.

I think the interesting philosophical question is that the most common reaction to Stevenson's research is that it couldn't be true, that there must be something wrong with him or his methodology, and that it can or should be ignored. — Wayfarer

I think this kind of work is non-Hindu, non-Buddhist. For at least some Buddhist and Hindu schools, remembering past lives is a special knowledge that is only possible after the person has attained certain higher abilities.

On a general note, remembering past lives is pointless if it doesn't also serve some higher purpose, such as disenchantment with samsaric existence or realizing dependent co-arising.

Would this include the hundreds of millions of middle-class Indians now employed in call-centres and high technology industries in Hyderabad and the like? I've worked with quite a few IT people of Indian extraction (one of whom always wore a bindu) and, although it didn't come up much, from time to time there might have been discussions of such topics as Hindu beliefs,

and they didn't seem all that reticent to me. They noted approvingly of my interest in Eastern philosophy.

Of course. There is something to be said about Asian politeness and indirectness ... and supremacy ...

When did some groups start disliking or hating Jewish people? — TiredThinker

Because of the Jewish claim that they are "God's chosen people".

While atheists are likely to dismiss this claim as religious fancy or delusion of grandeur, it actually means something to other people who also believe in God.

Religions typically claim supremacy; ie. each religion claims to be superior to others. This is not special. But there are only few religions that also claim ethnic supremacy.

Islam and Christianity accept and even welcome new members of all nationalities and all races, by an act of conversion, without the requirement of being born and raised into said religion. But some religions aren't like that. And those that aren't seem to be more likely to become the target of persecution of those who are more inclusive.

There aren't actually that many Jewish people in the world on a whole. I don't know what threat some people see.

They read at least the Bible, as the Old Testament is also part of Jewish scripture.
Just read it, no further explanation necessary.

It's like the Tool song: Vicarious — petrichor

And much more popular and clear -- listen to Bono's words

but even if you have no idea what I've just been talking about, any thoughts about the state of web applications and websites today is welcome. — Jamal

I think that before doing any of the demanding technical stuff (programming and whatever else is needed), one first needs to work out a philosophy of using technology to begin with.

See Cal Newport's Digital Minimalism for more on this.

Physics simply doesn't provide the resources to decide if you will put sugar in your coffee, or not. — Banno

It is possible to make physics do that, though.

Everytime a cognitive scientist says things to the effect "there is no love, there are only chemicals in the brain" they are using physics that way.

I still remember how a learner's driving manual talked about "when the neocortex receives an impulse". It was really careful to avoid saying that it is people hitting the accelerator pedal and often doing so recklessly.

No, I'm suggesting the broader point that attempting to treat of human freedom in physical terms at all is problematic. — Banno

But doing so does away with so many problems!
It's a kind of fatalism without being blatantly fatalistic.

And one more thing to this:

My reason for not believing in any form of personal rebirth or afterlife is not that there is any definitive evidence against it, but simply that I cannot make rational sense of the idea, and I cannot believe something I am incapable of even making coherent to myself. — Janus

The unspoken assumptions in many of these discussion are that "a particular claim is being proposed for discussion" or "a particular claim is being proposed for belief".

In my experience, this is not how religious/spiritual people think or approach discussion of religious/spiritual topics.

For example, for traditional Hindus, an outsider talking about reincarnation would be perceived as an idle intruder, someone who is thinking and talking about things they have no business talking about, being an outsider (although it would take the Hindus quite a bit to actually say so). In traditional Hinduism, religious conversion is an unintelligible concept. For them, religion is something one is born into, like caste, and not something subject to choice.

I find that for many traditionally religious people, religious doctrines are something one either believes or doesn't believe, not something that would be subject to empirical study or experience. Those religious people who proselytize will sometimes offer some "reasons for belief", but at least some of them will also say that those reasons are just provisional, a "tool to help the unbelievers", and not actual justifications for the religious claims (for those claims are not viewed as needing justification at all).

being openly fascist — Jamal

You do realize how ironic it is to accuse others of "fascism", when it is precisely what the "good Westerners" are?

And it seems that we not only do not know, but have no way of determining the answer; and so we turn to mandating that it is so, instead. We make it up. — Banno

It's similar with the way atheists of the Dawkins type don't believe in God. Their atheism is an atheism of a god that no actual theist believes in. Not because Dawkins' idea of god would be a strawman, but because it's something so abstract and so general that it doesn't match any existing theistic religion.

Similarly, the kind of disbelief in reincarnation some are displaying here is a disbelief in a notion of reincarnation that no believer in reincarnation believes in. In this case, these disbelievers' notion of reincarnation is partly a strawman, but mostly it's just based on ignorance of actual reincarnation doctrines.