We do well to acknowledge the beneficial effects of ritual in human life, and to recognize that this is what is properly referred to by the term "religion". — Michael Zwingli

We would also do well to acknowledge a foolish consistency. Curiously, you seem to point out that we’re surrounded in daily rituals and that any one of them could be elevated to divine status. That sounds like an expression of spirituality to me, or ‘spiritual but not necessarily religious’. Also curious that you put so much weight on ritual, like saying that a cake has everything to do with eggs and the rest of the ingredients aren’t of much importance.

I’m not at all religious, btw, but still feel moved in the midst of religious rituals.

I am careful with my wording. — dimosthenis9

:brow:

I like to think so. Don't you? — Outlander

You had me at “Dust Mite Paradoxes.” :love:

Oh, that was Varde. Sorry.

Imaginary innovation is by far the easiest to create and develop because the only limitation is the suspension of the audience’s disbelief, and that can be rather generous.

I’m thinking that all it really amounts to is a finding in game theory that cooperation for mutual benefit is the best life strategy and anyone who fails to realize this and try to live by it is either a moron or a sociopath. Problem is that it’s not that simple even in game theory. If you’re a sheep among wolves then dog eat dog rules are the most appropriate if you want to survive. Also, culture shapes and heavily influences individuals, so the line between stupid person and stupid culture is unclear, and there must be a correlation between the two.

Trump = bandit
Trump support base = stupid

Trump proves rule #1 for me.

I think a problem with the theory is that intelligent people can be neurotic and cause problems for themselves and others rather than stupid.

"Possible answers" though and not "definite answers" as religion does. — dimosthenis9

And that's an insignificant difference for you? It indicates that their purposes are of an entirely different nature. If philosophy is the love of wisdom, religion is the love of social cohesion.

Doing some back-reading, I can't answer what you were asking any better than what 180 wrote and you seem to have ignored.

I'm curious why you're so intent on drawing a parallel between philosophy and religion. :chin:

There is indeed. — dimosthenis9

Apparently, I misinterpreted what you were asking. Maybe if I read the previous content it would have been clearer with that context.

You're as dogmatic as any preacher, only in the opposite direction :wink: — Wayfarer

:razz: I promise not to label you a heretic if you were to try explaining this claim. If you do try, I suspect that it will inevitably end in your saying something to the effect that my religion of scientism blinds me to glorious heavens. I'm paraphrasing of course.

many people try to answer these existential questions via religions. — dimosthenis9

Sure, but there's a difference between seeking and belonging.

First people have the questions on their own a priory and after they seek the answers. — dimosthenis9

Not necessarily, some are raised within a religion and belong to it their entire lives. They may of course privately question it, but to publicly question doctrine is to risk becoming a heretic. Also, questioning too deeply will tend to erode faith and promote independence. Whether or not that's beneficial to the individual it's not beneficial to the religion because it loses support. A lost supporter can still be useful though, and that's why heretics exist. They help to reify the identity of the in-group by distinguishing them from the in-group. It's a 'you're either with us or against us' mentality. You'll note that there are no heretics in philosophy.

Isn't the question "what happens after death?" available both in philosophy and religion? — dimosthenis9

It isn't really available in religion because to belong is to not question the dogma, and it's all about belonging. The function of philosophy is not to bind communities with shared values, norms, and narratives.

See by even questioning the value of that which is, OP becomes Hume, he becomes Socrates, and "Kneechee". All without even realizing it. OP has committed a first-degree murder of his premise with a smoking gun in his hand that he can't even see! — Outlander

I seem to recall Clark fully acknowledging that he's a product of his culture.

I think the following is the essence of what we're talking about and Clark declares his preference.

I clarified my understanding of the relationship between awareness and rationality. For me, awareness comes first. — T Clark

You need a degree to employ the scientific method?

I'll be the first to admit the OP leaves much to be desired, blindly following the sentiments of the OP will likely lead to not only ignorance but a life unlived. But at least in my view, the OP is redeemed because it has the spark of true wisdom and philosophy that, if nurtured and exposed to the right intellectual catalyst will grow into a raging inferno of enlightenment and with any luck, happiness. — Outlander

Disagree. I think the OP is essentially asking about what matters. Does "building little intellectual kingdoms out of the sand" really matter, or really lead to happiness? It certainly has the potential to lead to wisdom, at least wisdom in the Western sense.

Blindly following the sentiments leads to anti-intellectualism and poor reasoning, in my experience. In the zen community, people can become very accomplished meditators, with "a raging inferno of enlightenment", but often tend to be poor thinkers. A case of use it or lose it, I suppose, or that one's focus determines one's reality.

The OP of course simply doesn't even begin to raise the same issues, because it doesn't even rise to the level of advocating for autodiadictism. It literally says that ignorance is fostered by learning. — StreetlightX

In an Eastern ‘your cup is full’ sense that is how I interpreted it. Ignorance being ignorance of one’s true nature. Realizing one’s true nature is regarded as the highest wisdom.

Also kind of like missing the forest for the trees:

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc. — Artemis

Is that what you think I was asking for? OH, you’re being sarcastic, silly me.

I think the parallel would be that I don't need to study masterworks, or rather, asking what I’m missing by not studying them.

If you for some reason think academia as whole doesn't provide what you mean, can you please elaborate what elements of jiu jitsu (or other) training you mean? — Artemis

I'm asking about the specifics of what's provided.

Don't know anything about jiu jitsu but I've been practicing to develop skills in oil painting. That discipline and be broken down into various aspects of performance, such as shape, value, edge, color, and composition. Each of these elements can be focused on to improve overall performance. In order to improve edge quality, for instance, a practice method might be to study masterworks that excel in that quality and practice recreating them. Whatever method is used, specific goals for improvement and reliable feedback are essential, as well as lots of challenging practice.

Similarly, an aspect of philosophy that could be developed to improve philosophical performance is critical thinking. Of course, this skill is developed in academia, but how rigorously and what methods are used?

You mean like.... getting a PhD? — Artemis

A PhD is advanced education, needless to say. What I mean is specific training methods to improve performance, similar to the methods used in the sports that have been mentioned. Critical thinking, for example, is an important skill for any aspiring philosopher to develop, I'm sure. What methods are used to develop it? and remember the 10k hour rule to mastery.

I think most can agree that it takes a lot of study and/or writing to become an expert in any field. There isn't a clear answer to this question, just some general things we can say. — Sam26

It’s that lack of clarity that makes me, and initially Janus, question the comparison to disciplines like tennis and jiu jitsu which have highly developed training methods for improving performance. Not a big issue because I think that advanced training methods could be developed for philosophy, and that it would included studying master works and mentoring, it’s just a little annoying.

Most people have no idea how much effort it takes, and how much skill it takes to be one of the best. Wittgenstein agonized over his thoughts. It reminds me of people who come off the street thinking they can challenge experts in jiu jitsu, it's just laughable. — Sam26

Several people have mentioned this ‘expert training’ and I still left wondering about it.

A philosophy major is a humanities degree path that will challenge students to examine questions with no right answers. As they become familiar with notable thinkers and diverse worldviews, majors will learn to think critically, identify and evaluate arguments and engage in moral and ethical reasoning. Students can learn both contemporary and historical philosophy, and they will develop the reading and analysis tools necessary to understand philosophical writings from across periods.

Does a degree in philosophy make one an expert? If not, what might an expert training regimen look like?

You think continuing this provocation is helpful or wise? — Amity

All praxis and no play makes praxis a dull boy.

We've gone from Lynch's extravagant Baroque style to Villeneuve's minimalist Brutalism. — Nils Loc

It crossed my mind that that may have had something to do with the feeling.

The characters resemble and are coterminous with the sand, buildings and worms. — Nils Loc

Very much appreciated the consistency of the aesthetic.

Kinda funny but, like your short story in the competition, fiction doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. At least I made it past the first couple of paragraphs in this latest drama. :razz:

I've tended to think that restless men (particularly) who have fragile self-esteem chase after two things - money and gym membership. — Tom Storm

I’ve had a gym membership and stayed fit as a lifestyle for my entire adult life, but I’ve never been a money chaser. Low self-esteem though so your mold halfway fits.

So, yeah, I get you've found the path to improvement, just be aware your method is ultimately inferior.
— Hanover

The problem with your tennis analogy is that there is no determinable criteria of excellence in philosophy. Even the so-called experts, the academics, are deeply divided on the values of, for example, on the one hand, Heidegger or Hegel and on the other, analytic philosophy. There is no Nobel Prize for philosophy and that is telling. Philosophy is, paradigmatically, a matter of taste. — Janus

What I was thinking when I read Hanover’s post. Deliberate practice requires a high degree of structure and well defined goals. There are definitely well established methods for training in things like music and sports, but philosophy? I seriously doubt it. I doubt there are even well established training methods for aspects that are less subjective, like critical thinking.

Argumentative

• Given to expressing divergent or opposite views.
• Using or characterized by systematic reasoning.

Doesn't sound so very terrible to me. Perhaps all the experience of losing arguments has imprinted a negative impression.

No leopard, lion or giraffe can be jealous, greedy, vengeful, and argumentative. — god must be atheist

Curious that you regard argument negatively.

I put to you that our "negative" (in the Stoic sense) human traits have developed for a reason; a good reason; and they are here to stay with us, you can't edit it out of humans with reason and social cohesion. — god must be atheist

I put to you that our "positive" (in the Stoic sense) human traits have developed for a reason; a good reason; and they are here to stay with us, you can't edit it out of humans with reason and social cohesion.

I am aware that it is not a simplistic division and many may see explore religion and philosophy together. However, many people who come to philosophy have stepped outside of mainstream religious thinking and I am wondering about the way in which philosophy provides an alternative way of finding explanations and meanings. Or, am I wrong in trying to frame philosophy as an alternative to religion? — Jack Cummins

Searching for and finding alternative explanations and meanings is corrosive to religion because it disrupts faith in its authority. Religion is replaced by finding explanations, community, a sense of being part of something greater than yourself... or in a word, meaning, for yourself.

I thought that was going to be about a Game of Thrones sequel.

Beautiful.

This is the real human nature. — god must be atheist

We are a social species and have the capacity of reason. Living in accordance with that nature is what stoicism is all about. We aren’t leopards, zebras, lions or giraffes.

Stoicism: It can't be mastered. It can't be done. It can't be practiced. — god must be atheist

It definitely rubs our capitalistic values forged in rugged individualism the wrong way. We're not trained for well-being, so we need to train ourselves.

Ape sitting in room ruminating on air, almost certainly utterly moronic. — StreetlightX

This sort of thing supposedly lead Siddhartha Gautama to some world-renown insights.

The OP didn't suggest to me at all that we should "blank-slate oneself to ideas."

I watched the new Dune movie last night on HBO. I generally liked the casting, and the visual and soundtrack aesthetic was gorgeous and seamless. Despite that richness it somehow felt thin or lacking passion.

Long live the pawns!

What should I do about this? — Shawn

Me no understand question.

You were quoting yourself?

It is a fact that religious followers follow and a handful of leaders lead them.

There's a saying: "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, while the religious man puts his life on the line for the things he's been led to believe." — baker

And far too often the lives of others.

I fixed the quote, btw.