Could she have had better results and outcomes, if she had taken wiser actions? — universeness

And what would such "wiser actions" be? Submitting to the Romans?

In particular, immerse yourself in the perspectives of those who perpetrate acts that elicit these feelings, so that they become more intelligible and predicable to you.
— Joshs

How important do you think it is that all people must do this? based on my op question:
Do you think that preparing people for such, would do more harm than good?
— universeness — universeness

The problem with such "preparation" is that the very same people "preparing" others that way are probably also themselves the perpetrators of "horror and terror". Like when kindergarden nurses beat children in order to "teach" them to be kind and not to beat children.

Such preparation could be effective only if the preparer and the prepared would be in a relationship of mutual trust. For the most part, this is not possible, though. So people learn a double moral standard from early on.

Really? I assume you are not suggesting that 4 year old humans know how to thwart the horror and terror tactics used by nefarious humans. — universeness

Small children are not yet obsessed with political correctness and denial the way adults tend to be.

Do you think that the examples you offer are scientifically rigorous and are such personal interpretations truly comparable with human notions of horror and terror and how such is manipulated?

It depends on one's agenda, I suppose.

Living. — Vera Mont

Living -- doing what?

(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)
No matter! You wouldn't understand it.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum. You should be able to offer more than your moral indignation.

If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.
— baker

I see this happening too. It is already happening in the Pagan communities. — Bret Bernhoft

It seems to me that the technology aspect in this is actually incidental, and a symptom of a common phenomenon in religion/spirituality.

This phenomenon is the conviction that by blindly following one's guru, unquestioningly believing the teachings, mechanically performing the religious/spiritual practices, one will attain the goal of the religion/spirituality. That by zoning out like that, detaching oneself like that, one will make religious/spiritual progress. Notice how people who approach religion/spirituality that way appear very optimistic about reaching the religion's/spirituality's goal (even when the religion/spirituality itself paints a bleak picture of the world).

Technology seems to be especially suited for such an unquestioning, mechanicistic, and optimistic approach to religion/spirituality.

A free state of mind or consciousness. They want to redeem their souls. — javi2541997

What is that? What does that mean?

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?
— baker

Most are fair and goodwilled… not much different than any others that I know.
/.../
This is probably straying from the topic though. — 0 thru 9

I brought this up because in my experience religious people and especially the spiritual-but-not-religious types are like zombies, talking to them is like talking to a wall.

Another poster earlier in the thread commented that the image of the meditating robot was "grotesque". I, on the other hand, laughed, and thought what a fitting image. People "meditate" to zombify themselves, to robotize themselves. "It's all just thoughts ... let them go ... just thoughts coming and going ... let them go ... be a non-judgmental observer ... let go ..."

The modern trend in spirituality is all about robbing oneself of the vitality of being a moral agent and instead turning oneself into someone who doesn't even have opinions, who never takes a stand on anything (because that would be "judgmental"). Someone with an empty mind.

Eastern religion is heavily based on change and renewal, which allows themselves to be more open to change. — Isaiasb

Open to change in what way?

In that Christianity is one of the fastest growing new religions in Asian countries?

Wrong! Wealth-accumulation is for assholes like Musk. — Vera Mont

People who say they don't value money are naive, or just lying.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.
— baker

They're healthier and happier than the striving, climbing, back-stabbing people. Plus, they're not so assholish. They seem be okay with that.

You didn't answer my question.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for?
Sip craft beer, eat organic chips, and watch Game of Thrones?


(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)

If a lioness loses her cubs to a male lion who has just taken over the pride, she does not seem to seek vengeance on him? — universeness

Probaly because she understands she is much too weak to be successful against him. Not because she had no sense of vengeance.

Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans?

I've seen cats revenge themselves against humans. I've seen a cat step in to break up an uneven fight/play between dogs. I've seen a cat step in to protect another cat from a human.
Crows team up against a larger bird of prey that hunts young crows.

Events like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Zoo_tiger_attacks
A tigress in a zoo went after the people who teased her.

Do we need to be educated on the notions and applications of horror and terror, to be able to thwart the use of such tactics to expand and aggravate conflict between peoples?

Do you have any notions about how everyday people could be 'prepared' for dealing with horror and terror tactics? — universeness

Most people seem to learn that by kindergarden. People are far more resilient than official media are giving them credit for.

What we're seeing on the news is media propaganda. Bear in mind that people (who have experienced or witnessed something terrible) are often coached by the journalist what to say and then the journalist and news editors select a few interviews which then eventually make it to the news. But they dismiss all other interviews where the people don't paint a terrified, horrified enough picture of the events.

I'm saying that I don't think religious narratives are meant for us to "understand" ourselves, but to become a particular type of people. Religions are all about how one *should* be. (Whatever narratives religions have about who we are and where we came from are in the service of how we should be.) — baker

Is not "knowing thyself" the first step to becoming something other than what you already are? I mean, you could merely pay lip service to an imposed injunction, but that would not count as being a real change, but merely an act of self-repression designed to make you appear to others (and perhaps to yourself) to be living up to some introjected ideal. It would only be by understanding or knowing yourself that you would be able to tell the difference. — Janus

Here we need to bear in mind that people who are born and raised into a religion have their sense of self shaped by the religion. They have no sense of identity apart or outside of their religion.

What you're bringing up applies to prospective adult converts. It's evident that people sometimes do internalize the idea of "who they really are" when this idea is given by someone else. The actual psychological processes underlying this seem to be rather complex.

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

Survival only ever takes place within a context. What is fit, is what fits into it's environment. Cooperation, not competition, is paramount.

Not survival of the fittest, so much as survival of what fits. — Banno

And in a fascist environment, this means ...

because in a competition they all survive, not only the fittest one. — Alkis Piskas

Those who are repeatedly outcompeted for jobs, eventually die homeless.
The point of competition (in real-life settings) is that not everyone gets to survive.

The fittest one is simply in a better condition than the rest. In a track field race, the fastest one wins and takes the golden medal, but the 2nd and 3d ones also win.

I think you're taking the sports analogy too far. Sports competitions are games, they are not the life-and-death competitions of everyday life.

(And also, sometimes in sports the difference between the first-placed and the tenth-placed is a fraction of a second or a few centimeters. In absolute terms, the difference is trivial, and yet anyone who doesn't make it to the best three is dismissed as a loser.)

Sorry, I can't edit posts from my smartphone, so please dismiss the above post due to wrong tags.

3) What consequences or implications can this this phrase have for our lives if we embrace it as a principle and let it define our actions? — Alkis Piskas

It seems that in popular parlance the concept of "survival of the fittest" is used as a heuristic for identifying the right course of action, the moral course of action, and to justify it. "Those who survive are doing things right".

In practical examples, this also means that someone who commits a crime but manages not to get caught by the justice system is "doing the right thing".

*edited wrong tags/double post*

The big picture here, if you're not seeing it, is that this tiny minority is being evicted from everywhere they go — Hanover

They are God's chosen people.

Everything else pertaining to them follows from that.

The examples listed in your linkt appear to be a combination of several formal and informal fallacies. Some candidates come to mind:

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization

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


And esp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The only problem is that your teeth rot and you're not okay with it!

In other words, universal impersonalist determinism is fine as long as one isn't facing any actual problems in life. (Which are always just around the corner.)
In other words, you can tell yourself that you're stardust and you can be okay with it -- but only for some time.

Patriotism may be the ‘last refuge of the scoundrel’ (as the saying goes), but having an absolutist, inflexible, and literalist stance on any religion or spiritual belief is a close second, in my very humble opinion. — 0 thru 9

Is it your experience that religious or spiritual people are open to communication, good listeners, willing to cooperate, fair, goodwilled, acting in good faith?

I wish I see some Samurai if I go to Japan one day, as well as I watched them in Kurosawa's films. — javi2541997

(Not from a Kurosawa film)

Katsumoto : The way of the Samurai is not necessary anymore.
Algren : Necessary? What could be more necessary?

Ask yourself, what is so precious, so valuable in your culture for you from the 19th Century and earlier, that without it you will feel your spirit is crushed? — ssu

The distinction between the high and the low.

The distinction between the classy and the plebeian.
The distinction between art proper and kitch.
The distinction between the honorable and the dishonorable.

Traditional cultures typical have this kind of distinction, whereas modern consumerist culture doesn't.

Is it unbearable for you when things have changed from that time?

Unbearable ... I feel like a dinosaur.

Frank, I'm just not sure how much can be accomplished by a discussion of the morality of war in general — BC

I imagine the aim of such discussions is to get peace of mind through understanding.

Do I know what the truth is here, what is moral and what is not? No more than anyone else, which is why I am doubtful about what we can accomplish here.
/.../
I prefer that people not commit murder, wholesale slaughter, wanton destruction, and bring about general ruination.

But... sooner or later, people do those things and think themselves quite moral.

All the more reason to contemplate issues of morality.

Every philosopher worth his salt has to develop a system of morality that makes sense of life as it is actually lived (including the wars) and that gives him peace of mind. The aim of philosophy is wisdom, not confusion.

Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires.
— baker

What is your main source of evidence for the words I have underlined?
Evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest?
If it is, then was cooperation and altruism, not also essential aspects of that experience as well? — universeness

Like I've been saying all along: It is my understanding that passages like the one quoted from Smith are meant to be taken as instructions, in an ideological sense, not as descriptions based on empirical observations.

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them.

It is just -let's say - a pathway to a free state of mind. — javi2541997

Religious/spiritual people seem to be "free" to you? Free of what? Free to do what?

Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. Far away from what we are all able to perceive or understand.

Sure.

We seem to be talking past eachother.

I'm saying that I don't think religious narratives are meant for us to "understand" ourselves, but to become a particular type of people. Religions are all about how one *should* be. (Whatever narratives religions have about who we are and where we came from are in the service of how we should be.)

Whatever the actual alternatives might be [since I doubt social justice is available atm] , of course I do not want to be rich! — Vera Mont

You kid, right?

[image of meditating robot] — Bret Bernhoft

But religions an spiritualities are already zombifying people anyway. If anything, I see a convergence between what you call "techno-optimistic religion" and existing religions/spiritualities.

@Vera Mont
Do you want to be rich or do you want "social justice"?

Except that the disparity of rich an poor only becomes "the natural order of things" when it's pronounced so by the spokesman for the caste that has grown rich on the labour of the castes below. /.../ All that guff about natural competition might make some kind of sense if everyone played on the same field and had a say in making the rules. — Vera Mont

Like I've been saying, it seems to be about the difference between an instruction and a description.

Not all poor or otherwise disadvantaged people have a socialist (or some such) outlook. Some have a bourgeois mentality -- and they don't all stay poor for long.

What you describe is precisely that artificially imposed system of valuation to which I was referring. — Vera Mont

How is it artificial, if some people come out as the winners?

My own philosophical work is largely motivated by a sense that people don't know very well what they are talking about in the first place. — plaque flag

It seems to me that people are generally smarter than they seem, and that what might look like ignorance is actually an act.

The US is still the Wild West in its mentality. Of course any restrictions of rights, esp. the rights to self-defense will seem oppressive in such a Wild West setting.

The evidence is in the multitude of different mutually contradictory stories. They can all be wrong, but they can't all be right. — wonderer1

That's assuming that those stories were invented (?) for the purposes that you claim. How do you know they were invented for those purposes?

How implausible the stories are is evidence for them being a product of relatively uninformed thinkers.

Again, that's assuming the purpose you ascribe to them is the true and relevant one.

Religions (communities of religious followers) propagate claims about the nature of ourselves which are based on stories that the religion originating story tellers told.

What religion doesn't make claims about what we are?

Of course. Has it ever occured to you that those stories, even when they are in the form of descriptions or explanations, are actually instructions, statements of the norms of the particular communities that told those stories?

Who is "us"? Mankind as a whole, any particular person, or a particular person (but not some other person)?
— baker

I would have thought it should be obvious that I was referring to the way things generally appear to humans; you know, things like 'trees have leaves', 'water flows downhill,', 'clear skies are blue' and countless other well-established commonalities of appearances. — Janus

It all goes back to disagreement, and what to do about it, how to think about it.

The differences in locutions are not superficial.
— baker

I think what you say here has no relevance to what it aims to respond to.

Given that people often say "This isn't real, it's all in your mind", there's clearly more to it.

I've been following this theme of disagreement throughout this thread, but with little success, apparently.

It's precisely disagreement, on various levels, that points in the direction that the mental is all we have to work with. Not that the mental is all there is. But that it is all we have to work with.

And traditionally, and in general, the way many people try to overcome disagreement (and to win verbal disputes) is to posit the existence of an external world of which they claim or imply to have special knowledge, and that anyone who doesn't think the way they do is wrong, bad, evil, or in some other way defective.

In any case, the person who told you're wrong to like Portrait of a Lady was speaking idiotically; it's uncontroversial that there is no accounting for taste, no possibility of establishing objective aesthetic criteria.

Traditional literary theory disagrees with you.

Religions tell stories that our relatively uninformed ancestors came up with, to explain the nature of ourselves. — wonderer1

People keep saying things like this. Where's the evidence that they really made up those stories, and for those stated purposes?

The Adam Smith reference was both ironic and not. I think it's an instruction disguised as an "observation" or "explanation". A famous example of such a disguised instruction is "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger". It's obviously not true, for there are many maimed and broken people. But as an instruction saying that one should overcome adverse situations that are anything less than lethal it kind of makes sense. Similar with the Adam Smith reference. It seems it's saying that inequality and competition are natural, the natural order of things and that one must not indulge in compassion for others or otherwise concern oneself with social justice (or with big metaphysical problems), but instead look after one's own interests and cater to one's desires.

I was attempting to illustrate the distinction between what I call "direct utility" and what you call "a unique force" in the modern world. Money is an artificially imposed system for measuring the relative worth of things and people, a system whereby resources are collected and allocated unevenly. That's very different from a life necessity. A monetary system can collapse, can be arbitrarily changed, devalued, even abolished, without any loss to the other. — Vera Mont

How so?
Have you lived in a country that has undergone a major monetary change, like in a country that gave up its own currency in favor of the Euro?

Some in an society can be ardent believers, but the majority simply adapts to the prevailing situation. And the majority will also adapt when the situation changes. — ssu

Exactly. But what does it help if the body lives, if the soul, the spirit is crushed?