But then again, "human nature" should perhaps be thought of as every bit as bad as religions typically say it is.

I don't know how your response is supposed to relate to what I said. — wonderer1

It ties with the OP.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

What is the purpose of having "a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding of human nature"?

Per the OP, it's to avoid Weltschmerz (among other things, I presume), ie. to avoid (a certain type of) pain.

Do you think that religious indoctrination doesn't result in many people believing a false account of human nature?

Perhaps an overly negative one, yes. Religions typically take a dim view of humans.

You don't say.

Can you envision a moral system build entirely of non-emotional values? If we were to turn everyone into Mr Spock, would we still have the same variety of moral stances we now see in human culture? — Joshs

Of course. It's what we have. Who doesn't present themselves as "logical" and "rational"? What ideology is not praised as such?

Spock only presents himself as "rational", "logical", these are the words he uses to describe himself.
Envision that the character of Spock would be played by the handsome actor playing Kirk. What would change? That rendition of Spock would seem perfectly human, only ironic. Which is the point. Spock is as "emotional" as everyone else, he just openly denies being so (the way some people do). This is what people can relate to, and why Spock's character is so liked by people.

(Probably some 80% of cowboy characters in classical western films are similar to Spock in that they show very little emotion in their face and voice. It used to be considered "manly".)

And, of course, the Star Trek franchize is responsible for the greatest abuse of the word "logic", ever.

Are you just playing games or are you really as abrasive as your response seems?

I think the people they interviewed were clueless and just following a demagogue who had the right enemies - intellectuals, liberals, do gooders, Marxists, unAmericans, politicians - the usual shit. — Tom Storm

And you don't think the way you speak about Trump's supporters is abrasive?

Trump's supporters or not, they are still people. Yet the way you speak about them is dehumanizing.

Can't you see you're doing the same kind of thing they're doing? You're playing the same kind of game they are, by the same rules.

And on the evidence of their bereft replies, they want to support hatred and conspiracy.

So? What does that mean for you?

"Affectation" according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online, is:

"a. Speech or conduct not natural to oneself: an unnatural form of behavior meant especially to impress others; b. the act of taking on or displaying an attitude not natural to oneself or not genuinely felt." — Ciceronianus

Or are you perhaps talking about people post(ur)ing at philosophy forums when it's already past their bedtime?

Some people go to pubs and drink and talk. Some people go to philosophy forums and talk ... and drink.

And besides, one has to try on different philosophies for size, so to speak, given them a trial run. That's not hypocrisy.

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. — Tom Storm

And you take their statements at face value??
Or are you just playing games?

Have you ever tried to envision what such an interview is like for those Trump supporters? What do they think of it? Do they think of it as a conversation, a discussion, a debate? Do they perhaps consider it a rude imposition?

Because how a person replies to questions depends on who is asking those questions, who that person is to them, in what setting those questions are being asked, etc..

Not one of them could name any. They just liked him.

People usually vote for those they like anyway.

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?

Have you considered the possibility that they actually want what they are supporting and voting for? That this is about their actual values and desires?

They never dictate who is an alcoholic and who isn't. — Hanover

I actually heard them say it.

And then there are thousands of studies on mice — Hanover

You've got to be kidding.

The disease model of addiction is gradually fading. — Tom Storm

For some, too late.

Plenty of material on line about all this. — Tom Storm

Of course.
Perhaps there'll even come a day when official psychology/psychiatry acknowledge philosophy as a valid approach to dealing with existential problems!

But the field had already been painted. From an objective viewpoint, how could the man have truly been free? — Art48

That the field was painted in a particular way is irrelevant. Free will applies to his sense as to whether he felt he had a choice to partake in the experiment or not. Free will doesn't pertain to the parameters of the experiment. If he felt he had a choice whether to partake in the experiment or not, he had free will; if he didn't feel he had such choice, he didn't have free will.

I wonder if a fundamental cause of the controversies is that the concept of free will is poorly defined. — Art48

Not poorly, but not universally, unanimously. You can see already from people's definitions of "free will" or from the experiments with which they propose to test it, whether they believe it exists or not. Libet, for example, makes absurd demands on what a will would need to be like in order to be free.

This is almost verbatim from a conversation with a female acquaintance: "I hate high heels. My feet hurt in them. ... But what can one do. Women must wear high heels."

Clearly, she has such a philosophy of life that enables her to override the pain; whereas some women don't. While both groups of women experience wearing high heels as painful.
— baker

The enjoyment of wearing high heels at the expense of the pain of the high heels is not at all equivalent to the desire a heroin addict experiences for his drug. — Hanover

I'm talking about overriding one's initial negative response to something that is socially desirable, and having a philosophy for doing so. Like my high-heel wearing acquaintance who would rather not wear high heels, but does so because she is convinced that a woman must wear high heels (and she is able to put this into words).

You have a negative initial response to alcohol. Yet unlike so many other people who also have a negative initial response to alcohol, you don't override this initial negative response and so you don't drink. In contrast, many people do drink, despite their negative initial response to alcohol. My assumption is that they do have a philosophy for doing so, although I haven't heard it stated directly (unlike my high-heel wearing acquaintance). It is also my assumption that people who don't override their initial negative response to something socially desirable also have a philosophy for this.

Do you know why you don't act in accordance with the social expectations around drinking alcohol?

The finest rehab facilities and the most oppressive of prisons have not eliminated drug abuse.

Possibly because they are aiming to eliminate the wrong thing.
Being "in control" of one's substance use is the easier part; "being in control" of one's emotions and one's existential predicament is the hard part. Unless infinite health and wealth could be guaranteed, one's existential predicament is always going to loom large. Whole religions and other ideologies are built around trying to deal with the existential predicament. Not very successfully, apparently.

Anyway, watch this 50 second video:

https://www.tiktok.com/@bbcnews/video/7295729395971427616

I've watched it the first time you posted it and I've been wanting to comment on it.
What Perry is saying here is a stance that I describe as "typically American". The other man, Hitchens, has a stance that I find to be more representative of the culture I am from. I've known heavy drinkers, but even they would never say a thing like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's normal here for people to drink, and to stop at some point. They can be all wobbly already, but still say, "Alright, that's enough", and they stop. And this can be a regular pattern, lasting for years. Of course, adherents of 12-step philosophy will say that these people are then "not really alcoholics".

The way a person's substance use and abuse and their thinking about this use and abuse are shaped has possibly a lot to do with the culture they live in. American culture tends to be black-and-white, all-or-nothing, so it's no surprise that an American-cultured person says things like "I'm in control only of my first drink. If I have the first drink, I can't stop." It's not alcoholism that gives one tunnel vision; it's tunnel vision that gives one things like alcoholism.

You might be an inadequate Muslim or Christian, but so what? Who decides what counts? — Tom Storm

You apparently decide what counts, by taking sides with those former Christians, former this or that.

How can someone even call themselves a "former Christian" or say they have "left Christianity", when, per you, it is up to God who decides whether someone was a Christian or not to begin with?

I don't think anyone true Christian or true Muslim. Such categories are pointless. — Tom Storm

Then how can you say that someone is a "former Christian" or a "former Muslim" or that they are "now an atheist"?

If terms denoting religious identity don't meaningfully apply, then how come you think they temporarily do apply?

Not to mention a no true Scotsman fallacy. — wonderer1

People often call a NTS fallacy in situations where there is actually a genuine ambiguity at hand. As such, it's not a case of a fallacy at all.

Terms denoting religious, political, national, or racial identity are usually complex, multilayered, subject to debate. As such, it's no wonder different people can mean different things by the same word. This doesn't make anyone's input fallacious. But it does make those calling out a NTSF in such situations simpletons ...

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.
— baker

Of course. But when has spirituality been a factor in the mass support of religions? — Tom Storm

?
I think the distinction between religion and spirituality is mostly spurios, so I usually use a joint term.

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses.

It's the truth.

Some religious/spiritual people will actually say things to the effect "being born and raised into a religion only gives you a foot in the door, nothing more".

It would make little sense to tell children, "You're not really proper members of our religion yet". Have you ever noticed how in many religions, they talk about growing in faith, development, faith formation etc.?

The lines between insiders and outsiders, between members and non-members are sharp only for zealots, and, perhaps, secular religiologists, both of whom have characteristically low and abstract standards for what constitutes religious membership.

For those more serious, those lines are far less defined, certainly not defined in terms of "Tom Storm is not a member, but Nancy Crow is".

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding. — wonderer1

Having high expectations isn't necessarily painful. It is painful if it comes from a position of weakness, of loss, of dependence. If it comes from a position of entitlement or strength, then having high expectations is not painful.

The sooner we do, the sooner we can start to become a significant extraterrestrial species. — universeness

... in order to escape our problems, since we can't solve them! Lol.

Why do these realisations lead to melancholy or escapism? — Skalidris

Because they are incomplete, partial.

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature?

Because it's not so clear what "human nature" actually is.

Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality?

There is one. It's called "philosophy".

Why do we keep these intuitive concepts that we can’t even define and that are a poor reflection of reality?

Laziness; or, more likely, being too busy with day-to-day survival.

We have so many insights about human nature but yet we keep on using concepts that give us a completely unrealistic view of humans, and cause Weltschmerz whenever we try to learn more.

Because Weltschmerz doesn't hurt nearly enough.

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

They were probaly never insiders, never "in it" to begin with. I used to make a point of reading people's exit stories from religion/spirituality. And in all cases I have seen, they had a poor knowledge of the religion/spirituality of which they claim to have been members of. So many former Catholics with such a shoddy knowledge of Catholic doctrine! Former Hare Krishnas, former Buddhists, former Mormons, all with really odd ideas about what their former religion teaches. Even if some of them have attained some positions of power and influence in their respective religious/spiritual groups.

These people were probably "members" in the sense that they were physically there in their religion's church or temple etc. But mentally, it was like they were on another planet.

What is interesting however are the amount of formerly religious people who lose their faith when they begin reading the Bible or Koran in earnest. — Tom Storm

Of course. If their initial "faith" didn't have much to do with the foundational texts of their proposed religion/spirituality to begin with, of course they will more likely experience those texts as alienating. (There are, of course, also those who buy a Bible and place it on a prominent spot in their home, and never read it.)

I've met quite a few former ministers, priests, and believers who came to atheism simply by asking the question, why do I believe in this?

Well, how silly of the church hierarchy to assume that the "believers" actually should know why they're there ...

Going through the motions with religious/spiritual belief is actually a phenomenon that is criticized in religion/spirituality.

It's for that reason that I don't think this really is a philosophical difference as much as it is a physiological difference. — Hanover

To me, it is primarily a philosophical difference. To me, asking a drinker "How did you convince yourself that drinking alcohol was worth it?" makes perfect sense. It took me a while to learn not to actually ask such questions.

Because it's not at all just about the physiological differences, but about a person's willingness to override the intuitive reaction they have to something.

This is almost verbatim from a conversation with a female acquaintance: "I hate high heels. My feet hurt in them. ... But what can one do. Women must wear high heels."

Clearly, she has such a philosophy of life that enables her to override the pain; whereas some women don't. While both groups of women experience wearing high heels as painful.

So my question to you is: do you think that it is the case for alcohol? That it is mostly genetics and there isn't much we can do about it. — Skalidris

It's about how we talk about it, isn't it?

If someone comes to the discussion with the conviction that "everyone is solely responsible for themselves", then such a person will favor such explanations of alcoholism that are in line with that (e.g. "some people just have weak wills"). While someone who believes in the overwhelming power of genetics will just shrug their shoulders and perhaps hope for some medication that can override the genetic defect.
And so on.

It is the result of genetics. As the study notes, generally, 50% of the cases of alcoholism are inherited. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603686/ — Hanover

Okay. But whether a genetic predisposition will express itself depends also on environmental and other factors.

I'm cautious of blaming "genetics" for anything, because blaming "genetics" tends to be a way to absolve the blamer for any responsibility for how they treat the blamed.


All in all, alcohol use and abuse is a very complex topic. So discussing it isn't merely about alcohol, but also about many preconceived notions with which people approach talking about alcohol and social and psychological topics in general.

Almost everyone who tries alcohol for the first time finds it disgusting, and the first time being drunk is also not necessarily pleasant. But social pressure makes you do it more and more, and allow it to become a pleasurable habit. — Skalidris

There is an explanation that nobody likes their first sip of alcohol, or coffee, or the first puff from a cigarette. These are acquired tastes. It takes deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to them. And it's this deliberate effort to override one's body's natural negative response to a substance or activity that bonds the person to that substance or activity.

My thread was mostly about why we keep on feeding these habits as it promotes escapism and gives less importance to meaningful social interactions.

It seems the crucial element here is in deliberately overriding one's intuitive impulses. This is what becoming "civilized" or "cultured" comes down to, for better or for worse.

For example, when your first impulse is to tell someone "God, you're ugly in that dress!" and you stop yourself, that's an example of deliberately overriding your impulse, and in turn, you're going to be perceived as "cultured".
But it seems this pattern extends to other things as well, such as alcohol.

Some people instantly find alcohol pleasurable, from the fist drink. Many people will tell you that on drinking, it was the first time they felt normal or had a sense of wellbeing. — Tom Storm

But perhaps at that point they had already lost their "drug virginity" to something else.
For example, they have already abused other substances that induce a slight buzz, such as sugar or coffee. Or glue or paint thinner. The stuff many children have been fed in modern times is pretty much setting them up on the course of substance abuse; with all that sugary fizzy drinks and sugary or fatty foods, they are already in a state of buzz. Then they quickly move over to energy drinks with lots of sugar and caffeine. By the time they begin to consume alcohol, they are already seasoned substance abusers, so it's no wonder they like it. (And then easily move on to other drugs.)

Using substances may well be a path some people adopt to manage significant trauma or anxiety disorders.

But this is a maladaptive approach.

What I've heard of alcoholics describe as a lifelong urge that has to be suppressed every waking moment not to drink that first drink or that will result in a complete lack of control/.../. — Hanover

I think this is an American thing, although made popular via 12 Step philosophy.
It has that American black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking in it. There is a culturally specific element in how people will interpret their urges.

It's not as if Native Americans, for example, who have extremely high rates of alcoholism, are just weak willed. It's part of their genetic response to the substance.

Do you know of any actual large-scale longitudinal studies that offer evidence of this genetic predisposition?

Obviously, there is a lot of alcoholism (and other forms of drug abuse) among Native Americans. But when considering the circumstances in which they tend to live, substance abuse is no surprise. Many live in a nightmare of a situation, in reservations, like in leper colonies, cut off from the rest of the world, with systemic racism against them, poverty as a background, dependent on state support.
Anyone, regardless of one's genetic predisposition, when placed in such grim prospects would struggle, and be more vulnerable to substance abuse.

The problem here is the old; how do we demonstrate that there are gods and how do we know what gods reveal? — Tom Storm

You keep bringing this up. To no avail.

On this the believers only have subjective interpretations.

That's like saying, "I totally refuse to obtain a degree in X, but I still feel entitled to get a job for which a degree in X is necessary."

You won't be able to see "a demonstration of proof of God" unless you qualify yourself for it.

With so many things in life, people are okay with this scenario: "In order to get X, you need to qualify yourself for it." Whether it's about education and employment, or romantic partners, credit from a bank, doing anything successfully, really.

But not whern it comes to religion/spirituality. This is where most people demand that no qualification is necessary or no qualification should be necessary. What one currently has should suffice to get a definitive judgment on a religious/spiritual matter. Period.

More at ProgressiveRegressive_Excerpt.docx — Art48

I think that's a caricature. It would take a bit to unpack it all.

I think so too, but in my experience, most people consider allowing for different perspectives as somehow wrong, a sign of weakness, self-doubt, lack of self-confidence, lack of knowing "how things really are".

Our previous prime-minister said that democracy means that we must also tolerate lies and wrong opinions. To him, there is just one correct way of seeing things.

Most people are like this:



"You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine."

A pervasive refusal to try to learn. — fdrake

"Husband beats wife so that she ends up in the hospital with multiple fractures. Because she pervasively refused to learn what he sought to teach her."

Many teaching situations are like that: The teacher is authoritarian, the student (possibly not even considering themselves a student) is seen as completely inferior.

Often, people seem like they don't want to learn because they don't want to learn in such a teaching situation; because they cannot cope with the stark difference between what is nominally being taught and what is taught as the hidden curriculum (eg. "the tense system in English" vs. "one must unquestioningly submit to those in position of authority").

What if someone is able to learn, calculative, intelligent, wilful, determined, of sound mind and they still do not learn and grow? Still don't try to excise their errors and expand their strengths across many domains they are in fact able to? — fdrake

How can you know that they are in fact able to do so??

The question is, when others fall short of our expectations of them in this way, is the failure in their intent or in our failure to separate their perspective from our own norms? — Joshs

Allowing for another's perspective (and first of all, learning what it actually is), surely feels like lack of confidence on one's own part (for many people, at least).

Stupidity is typically a blameful judgement of moral culpability we level against others (or ourselves) which supposes bad intent. — Joshs

Yes. This also seemingly exculpates the one who calls another person stupid of their own bad faith, and places the whole responsibility for the quality of the interaction on the other person, the "stupid one".

This song captures well what I think stupidity is:


Pretense, faking; no sense of fear, loss, danger; lying; blindly seeking adoration from others; immaturity.

@LuckyR
When someone says something like "So you think you're better than me because you (drive a fancy car, have a lot of money, etc.)", I wouldn't simply take this at face value. Sometimes, this is an expression of contempt, sometimes it's envy, sometimes genuine low self-esteem.

And then, of course, some people also genuinely believe that they are better than others, and those others simply understand them as intended.

The backlash against Prius drivers in the 2000s was the same thing. It's the perceived "I'm better (purer) than you". — LuckyR

This seems strange. It sounds more like a projection.

Many non-drinkers I know are uncomfortable around drinkers. Do they feel threatened, at a loss, judgemental, bored? — Tom Storm

It's not merely a feeling. We're supposedly living in a democracy, but not when it comes to alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, and meat. We're supposed to consume all those, or at least approve of such consumption, or regret that due to some objective reason we can't consume them. Otherwise, we get judged, severely even.

If one is rich, then one can afford some "quirks and whims", but not otherwise.

If someone comes to visit to my house and lights a cigarette, and I tell them not to, I will be considered rude and weird.

Yeah, it's the same psychology as vegetarians making meat eaters uncomfortable. — LuckyR

Where on earth is that??
Where I live, not drinking alcohol or not eating meat is met at least with disdain.
When I was a vegetarian, I wouldn't dare tell that to my doctor if asked. If I again go vegetarian, I still wouldn't dare say so.

I wasn’t aware progress was a journey. Is that how you see it? — Tom Storm

It's pretty much what the word means.

If we hold women's rights or gay rights up as progressive issues we support, I don't think the next question should be, 'But where will that lead us?'

Why not??
Can you explain?
I think there are many unsaids here.

Qidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem.

So I'd say religions and spirituality are a way to maintain strong morals, but that it's not the only way. Some people just don't need to think about why they want to be loyal for example, they just are, because that's what they've been told they should do. I know some people who have strong morals but aren't spiritual or religious at all. — Skalidris

My working assumption here is that morality is a complex system that a single person cannot invent and enforce on their own, and it's a complex system that requires a metaphysical, transcendental component, hence the need to tie morality to religion/spirituality.

However, if you don't have strong dogmatic intuitions, I don't think you'll be likely to be religious or spiritual. It's my case, I don't have strong moral principles and I've never been attracted to spirituality or religion.

This seems self-explanatory.

However one should differentiate "requires" from "prefers". I'd say I "require coffee" first thing in the morning to get moving. I strongly prefer it, and if I happened to run out I would likely go through considerable measures to obtain a cup. But if all coffee ceased to exist from the world, I would simply have to go through my morning routines regardless. — Outlander

Coffee. Another thing that makes me drowsy. If I drink coffee in the morning, I'm likely going to be tired and drowsy the entire day, without getting much done.

On the other hand I stand by the fact for most responsible drinkers, alcohol makes one "more jovial" as in, relative to one's preexisting state of joviality.

Then, perhaps, my default state of joviality is more intense than that of most people. I'd describe myself as naturally optimistic, even to a fault

Take something very tedious and boring no one enjoys. I don't know, sorting a 5-gallon bucket's worth of buttons that have become unsorted. For example. If, in this fictional example, you had to do it anyway and it's something you simply don't enjoy, you can't force yourself to enjoy it, that is to say you can't artificially elevate your "happiness" on cue or command absent of external stimuli.

But why would one have to make oneself enjoy it? Whence this obsession with enjoying things?
If something needs to be done, it needs to be done. Enjoyment doesn't necessarily come into the equation.

And yes, I can usually find ways to make even work that is hard and perhaps tedious into something I appreciate. I do it by taking an interest in it.

I think we can delve into two different common "types" of people's personalities, which many are a mix of the two or others but for simplification we will distinguish two: "introverts" and "extroverts".

Also, another psychological pair comes to mind: producers and consumers.
People who are producers require less external stimuli, have longer attention spans, they have a natural understanding that producing things takes time and effort, so they don't get bored easily.

So, while I agree with most everything you've said I think the assertion that someone who "requires to consume particular substances" to say have fun and feel at home in a crowded or unfamiliar environment is an automatic, cut-and-dried "weakness" and "disadvantage" needs some revisiting.

Why would one be under the obligation "to have fun" or "to feel at home" just anywhere, with just anyone?
Where does it say that one needs to feel at home or have fun just anywhere??

I think you should watch the video. — schopenhauer1

I watched both, but I'm not sure what to make of them. First off, I don't appreciate mixing serious criticism with humor. I'm not sure what to make of this genre.
Generally, the US just seems strange to me, a world I cannot relate to. This is, pretty much, why it captures my interest.

Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). — javra

In this particular case though, there is an alternative explanation: According to Buddhist principles, Buddhists aren't supposed to drink alcohol or kill animals or be involved in the business of making alcohol or slaughtering animals. But they still want to drink alcohol and eat meat. And as far as the meat is concerned, the Buddhist precept against killing is not breached as long as one didn't kill the animal oneself, didn't order it to be killed, or has no reason to believe that it was killed for one specifically. So the Buddhists found a convenient way around the Buddhist precepts and allow people of other religions to live among the Buddhists and to do the dirty work of brewing alcohol and slaughtering animals.
How the Buddhists thought that this wasn't going to backfire ...

*I can hardly wait to tell ya'll 'I told you so!'*