I do. I didn't see a "poor me" in the OP. I saw this:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
— Nietzsche — frank

What do you take to be the meaning of that often proffered quote?

I agree, there are a number of factors that are involved, but everyone believes that their version of god is on their side. — Paula Tozer

Everyone believes their version of 'truth' is on their side.

The problem isn't so much religion as it is tribalism and dogma.

I don't think "philosophy" has been to blame for mass murders, etc so much as dogmas have — 180 Proof

I agree. A critical point abotu human behaviours and tribalisms.

These represent only a fraction of the religious conflicts throughout history. The total number of people killed in the name of a god is likely in the hundreds of millions, if not more. — Paula Tozer

Lists are easy here, thanks to ChatGPT, are some of the non-religious wars and no doubt people will debate the finer points:

20th & 21st Century
Wars & Armed Conflicts

World War I (1914–1918) — Rooted in nationalism, imperial rivalries, alliances, and militarism.

World War II (1939–1945) — Driven by fascism, militarism, expansionism, and racial ideologies (e.g., Nazi doctrine) rather than religion.

Korean War (1950–1953) — Cold War proxy conflict over competing political systems (communism vs. capitalism).

Vietnam War (1955–1975) — Anti-colonial struggle evolving into a Cold War ideological battle.

Falklands War (1982) — Argentina vs. UK over territorial claims.

Iran–Iraq War (1980–1988) — Although both sides were Muslim, the main cause was territorial and political rivalry, not theological difference.

Russia–Ukraine Conflict (2014–present) — Geopolitical, territorial, and national identity disputes.

Ethiopia–Eritrea Border War (1998–2000) — Primarily about border demarcation.

State-led Atrocities & Mass Killings

Holodomor (1932–1933) — Soviet-engineered famine in Ukraine under Stalin; political/economic repression.

Great Purge (1936–1938) — Stalin’s political purges in the USSR.

The Holocaust — Although Jews were targeted partly on religious identity, Nazi ideology was racial/ethno-nationalist, not religious.

Mao’s Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) — Economic policies leading to famine and tens of millions of deaths.

Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) — Political and ideological purging under Mao.

Khmer Rouge Regime in Cambodia (1975–1979) — Pol Pot’s agrarian communist vision, ~1.7 million killed.

North Korean purges and gulags — Political control and suppression of dissent.

Rwandan Genocide (1994) — Ethnic conflict between Hutu and Tutsi.

Bosnian War Massacres (1992–1995) — Mainly ethnic nationalism, though with some cultural identity overlap.

Earlier History

Mongol Conquests (13th–14th centuries) — Expansionist empire building, not religious conversion campaigns.

Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864) — This one had a pseudo-Christian ideology, so not fully non-religious — but many other Chinese civil wars (e.g., An Lushan Rebellion, 8th century) were political/territorial.

Napoleonic Wars (1803–1815) — French expansionism, nationalism, and power politics.

American Civil War (1861–1865) — Primarily about slavery and state rights, not theology.

Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) — Territorial and political rivalry.

Key Points

Many of the deadliest conflicts in history — World War II, Mao’s campaigns, Stalin’s purges, the Khmer Rouge — were entirely non-religious in origin.

Even when ethnic groups with religious identities are involved, the core cause can be political, nationalist, or economic.

Political ideologies like fascism, communism, and nationalism have caused as many or more deaths than explicitly religious wars.

Philosophy is all about recognizing the forces that shaped you and trying to peep beyond them.
— frank

But is it really? If one is aware, truly, of what shapes not only one's self but the entire world, is it not something perhaps a bit more internal? :chin: — Outlander

It would seem to me that a key role of philosophy is to transcend one’s limitations - cultural and self-created. To ask better questions and move beyond the quotidian. I suspect there are many ways this could be done.

More people have been killed in the name of a diety than any other way. — Paula Tozer

Can you demonstrate that? I doubt it’s accurate.

I’m an atheist, but I don’t blame religion for everything that’s wrong or bad. Just look at Pol Pot, an atheist whose regime murdered millions of men, women, and children for a political agenda. Mao, another atheist, killed 30–40 million for his political vision. Stalin? Same story. One might even argue that philosophy (if we include political ideologies) may have been been responsible for more deaths than any other pathway.

Sounds like you've had a tough time of things, but perhaps it's important not to assume that one’s own experience is the whole reality of the world.

the Dialogues show Plato testing every proposition from multiple angles, leaving many questions unresolved. They’re not a compendium of answers so much as of questions. In that sense, philosophy has always been “critical” — not just of others’ views, but reflexively aware of its own assumptions. — Wayfarer

This is a critical point so often overlooked,

:up: The cartoon is nice.

Clever dick... Out of interest, who do you prefer, Sartre or Camus. I was never able to get through Being and Nothingness.

Put seeds for celery, cauliflower, cabbage and silverbeet in the heated tray. Hope to start lines for carrot, beetroot and parsnip in a bit. — Banno

The essence of good gardening.

But don’t we need to scrutinize and dissect feelings from logic from biases, from theories and propositions - everything isn’t about feelings. Although I think there is a case to made that wokeness is all about feelings - it is for the sake of feelings and driven by emotions. — Fire Ologist

I'm not certain on this. But as a supporter of diversity and inclusion in general terms, I’d say it’s as much a question of values as anything else, values that are informed by our affective and aesthetic dispositions. The hard part is knowing where to draw the line regarding when feelings are important in a discourse and when they’re not. I suspect you and I might draw that line in different places, which probably makes further discussion superfluous. I’m personally opposed to the coarsening of public discourse, name-calling, personal attacks, dismissive labeling, because I believe such behaviour damages people and undermines constructive dialogue.

Youngsters can be led by conservative values. I suppose you mean that youths may have a slight tendency to lean liberal. That appears to be statistically true according to recent surveys. — praxis

Indeed. And by extension we would imagine that the values held by 'woke' activism would be strongest amongst this cohort.

I'm curious what you mean by the younger being more values led. — praxis

My experince working with younger people is that they tend to be more values led - hence more radical and often more politically engaged. Isn't this merely a commonplace observation? What's the famous quote which satirizes this process - "If you are not a socialist at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

I’d take this to mean more led by feelings, much in line with Number2018 thesis of the OP. — Fire Ologist

If that is intended to trivialise people’s position, then not exactly.

But at a broader level, everything is about feelings, isn’t it? I tend to hold that our choices are guided by our affective dispositions.

My point is that some people hold certain values to be important. When they see ads that trade in implicit racism or sexism, they are disappointed by the choices made. That was certainly my reaction to this campaign. I also recognize that certain people, owing to age or education come away with different understandings.

the campaign may appeal to a teens rebellious nature—defiantly anti-woke or whatever. — praxis

I would have thought the younger, the more values led, with a tendency to be turned off by these sorts of campaigns. Interesting what you say about younger people.

What I do find peculiar about this is the apparent disinterest in any utility: — Pieter R van Wyk

It's obvious you find this peculiar or hard to fathom. The real question is, why?

But you’ve chosen the word 'disinterest', and that’s not the correct word. Disinterest makes an assumption we’re avoiding something that you’ve already decided is obvious and valuable. We (or at least I) don't share this presupposition. I would simply doubt that philosophy holds the power of wrapping up all problems neatly into a single, unified solution that solves all problems. That sounds more like the promise of Marxism or some kind of immature notion of philosophy as a kind of magic spell you cast so the jagged, messy parts of human life (your poverty, hunger, revolution and war) vanish.

Why would you think philosophy has this purpose? Is it because you believe philosophy (as some see religion) uncovers capital-T Truth, and that this will set us free? I don't see how philosophy is a guide to perfect living or a pathway to ultimate truth. Help me see what you see. I think the difference between us is that perhaps you see philosophy as a kind of blueprint for healing the world, while I see more as an attempt to ask better questions.

It’s more like AE is subtly playing along with or reflecting this cultural phenomenon and profiting from it. — praxis

I saw the ad and found it distasteful in a retro way, but many ads annoy me. I was wondering if it was trying to be playfully defiant towards identity politics. Maybe it was trying to generate controversy and talking points which some advertising wanker felt would translate into sales. I was surprised the ad ran, as I would have thought making a childish pun about a white, shall we say, 'Aryan' looking girl and her 'genes' would be unappealing to a wide variety of younger customers who are more mindful about their values than some others. What are the other nuances of this ad?

What point would there be in explaining it to someone who thinks it's meaningless? — Wayfarer

That's an odd quesion. As I've said many times, I am interested in what others believe and why. No need for antipathy. As you have seen, I am generous towards your contributions and think highly of your approach. So my quesion is genuine. I find idealism fascinating, just as I find Sufi mysticism or Kabbalah fascinating. Doesn't mean I'm a follower.

Of course it is a truism that the advent of modernity shattered this sense - this is what Max Weber described as the disenchantment of the world. So we need to understand the tectonic shifts, so to speak, that underlie all of these massive changes. It is no easy task, especially as we ourselves are both its proponents and its casualties. — Wayfarer

Yes, it’s interesting. Historically, I've gotten a lot of satisfaction from the idea that life is meaningless, that there’s no intrinsic purpose and that the world is disenchanted and pointless. It's generally cheered me up and helped me make sense of things. In the end, games of reasoning aside, we tend to select and hold views that appeal to our aesthetic sense, our cultivation of meaning, and our cultural experiences. But either view; that the world is magical or meaningless, can be used in terrible ways. I don’t subscribe to the various nostalgic projects, the kind of “woke MAGA” (or should that be Make Awareness Great Again?) projects of people like Vervaeke or McGilchrist, who seek to recapture lost traditions (or however they choose to market these notions).

These days, I’m more temperate. I don’t really mind either way about interpretations of the world as inherently anything in particular. I'm more interested in what others think and why to try to understand what's informing the choices around me.

As an idealist, what impact does this have on your day to day living?

Thank you for your nuanced response. I tend to hold what some might describe as progressive views on many issues but recognize that there can be extreme positions on all sides. I have a little contact with universities and politics (I sometimes advise political parties) and don't generally see much in the way of 'woke' activities around me. I am generally pro trans rights and feel this can be explored without rancour in person directly with people, but rarely on line. I'm not a theorist, nor do I mine the internet for egregious examples of zealots at work (and I am not saying you do this). I find it interesting that there appear to be energetic culture wars around that seem to reflect Fox News and the Murdoch agenda.

Trump is an expression of the anti-woke’s frustration with debating the issues wokeness has created. — Fire Ologist

So do you consider Trump to be a force for good in a world ‘taken over’ by Leftist fanatics?

For the woke, there is no debate or winning the argument - just shutting someone down who won’t agree. — Fire Ologist

To an outsider it looks like this would describe the world of MAGA too.

Has wokism ever had a direct impact on you personally? I’d be interested in personal experiences.

That's a very interesting and incisive post.

I don't hold my views because they are logically consistent, empirically provable, or factually credible. I hold them for meaning, purpose, comfort, morality, sense of community, sense of beauty, utilitarian benefit, belonging, etc etc. — Hanover

Nicely put.

The skit was designed to make PC culture look silly in a comical way. — praxis

I vividly remember the panic over political correctness in Australia in the early 1990's. "You can't say anything anymore!" being the usual refrain. Do you think the concern some have regarding woke is simply a continuation/development of this?

More of a Kantian?

Are you an idealist?

But disagreements are disagreements, and there’s no getting around that. — Wayfarer

I have no issue with disagreements. I disagree with myself.

...views I think are wrong are incorrect - rather than some more inflammatory term, which I was often tempted to use in the past. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that's the preferred approach. I always assume people are doing the best they can, even the rude ones. But we don’t have to engage with everyone.

I don’t have a deep view on this, but I generally avoid engaging with people I assess as hostile or aggressively obtuse. I suspect many who come across as belligerent aren’t necessarily self-aware, they likely see themselves as committed to truth or other ideals that, to them, justify what others experience as harshness or dogmatism. I avoid using abuse and inflammatory language but I've noticed that even measured engagement can be misinterpreted or misdiagnosed as sophistry or insincerity.

Ok.

If someone wrongs you, do not add to the offense by inflicting anger upon yourself. — Dogbert

I'm having trouble interpreting this one because I honestly can't remember the last time someone 'wronged me.' People have made mistakes that made things harder for me in some ways, but I haven’t been a specific target. The second part, about inflicting anger on yourself: what do you mean by that? How does one inflict anger on themselves? Do you mean that by being angry at others, you're actually harming yourself in the process?

If you experience loss, do not seek grief, but acceptance. inflicting misery does you no favors. — Dogbert

Do you mean inflicting misery, here? Do you mean by this that experiencing grief amounts to inflicting it? Or do you mean that you may become resentful and try to share the misery?

Some of what you're advocating has Christian and Buddhist overtones, but ultimately the simplified maxim of Stoicism, so beloved by our self-development gurus these days and foundational to CBT, may address all of this too. 'It’s not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.' - Epictetus

Flowering occurs when we finally learn to stop inflicting misery upon ourselves, — Dogbert

What would be an example of this in action? I suspect some people should probably be harder on themselves than they are.

One should expect to be a typical individual—say, a hydrogen ion—but the extreme opposite is the case. To resolve this discrepancy, and thereby render sapient life ordinary, unprivileged, or otherwise expected, we must invoke the Everett interpretation and posit that each individual perceives the timeline in which they become conscious of the self. Existence then becomes a blossoming tree of self-realization, with one's life but a single branch — Dogbert

What does this mean?

It's certainly a bit to unpack and then ponder using the given methodologies and justifications OP has provided. — Outlander

It's beyond me. Unfortunately I can't even get through Nietzsche or Heidegger...

If you want the truth... I’m hoping for a better ending. Not just death and that's it. I want to matter... not to just disappear one day and be forgotten. I don't want my efforts, my wishes, everything I am... to be in vain. — Null Noir

That's fair and I'd imagine millions of folk share this view. Thanks for clarifying.

That's my honest answer. The one I have been bottling up out of fear. — Null Noir

Yeah, I'd say fear is a powerful motivator for many beliefs.

If God, or any other deity was real, would you be kind to others out of your own accord, or would you do it out of fear? What even is the point of doing something if it is pointless? — Null Noir

I'm an atheist, and I tend to treat others well and generously because I find it pleasing. Humans are a social species with empathy, and as such, we wouldn't have come very far without cooperation and kindness.

God, for me, has never been a coherent idea or a necessary one. For me the arguments aren't convincing, and I tend to consider theism or atheism to be beyond reasoning and more like a sexual preference, you can't help what you're attracted to. The reasoning being mostly post hoc.

I am taking a short break — Null Noir

Rest well.

You believe it does not matter either way, which is a valid point and I cannot argue against that. — Null Noir

Not quite, I said there are many questions that don’t matter, but the question about the soul feels like it’s of a different order, right? I’m mainly here to learn what others believe and why, so if I feel something might be missing, I’ll ask questions to try to get something more substantial. No big deal.

Tom Storm, I will answer your question. The only reason the soul even matters to me is because I want knowledge and understanding of said knowledge. For example, if you were to find a subject you knew nothing about wouldn't you find it interesting to study? wouldn't you want to find people to talk about and share opinions with? That is how I work. I find out a concept exists, then I just... want to learn. Does that make sense? — Null Noir

The world is full of subjects I know nothing about, and that makes no difference to me. But the idea of a soul is hardly just another subject, it's so closely tied to questions of transcendence and meaning that you must be looking for something in particular.

To be clear: I’m not arguing that the universe didn’t exist before percipients. I’m arguing that the very concept of the universe — including any claims about its being — is bound to the framework of cognition. That’s not speculative metaphysics. It’s critical philosophy — and it was precisely this confusion that Kant sought to untangle. — Wayfarer

Well yes, and it's part of postmodernism too. Our frameworks, and reality are a contingent product.

I don't have an agenda - I have an interest in recovering what I think is the meaning of philosophy proper, which is not at all obvious, and very difficult to discern. I say that philosophical and scientific materialism is parasitic upon philosophy proper. — Wayfarer

How woudl you say this isn't an agenda, or at the very least a project?

My intention was not to have a go at whose contributions I value. I apologise if that's how it was heard. There are several members who are rather ardently flogging a worldview, which I don't mind as long as it is made clear and conducted with good grace, particularly when it is disagreed with. This site is a lovely, gentle way to engage with ideas and approaches one might not initially be drawn to. Having a personality bring it to life via conversation is wonderful, despite all the inherent deficiencies this may also bring.

These are good points Tom. I think people often forget that what they are presenting is merely one perspective. If they react defensively it seems to indicate that they have so much invested in their particular hobbyhorse that critique feels threatening. Hence the accusations of misunderstanding and lack of education. — Janus

Yes, it often happens amongst members here. Sometimes watching is like a slow motion car crash.

Not all the exchanges in this thread have been acrimonious, in fact they're the minority. — Wayfarer

Never said they were. I'm pointing to something I've noticed about the ones that are.

As far as being dogmatic is concerned, please be so kind as to indicate where you think this shows up in the OP. — Wayfarer

I'm not going to spend valuable time seeking out examples. And I said "a little", besides, I'm not saying it's your modus operandi. It's just my take on the way you sometimes talk, for instance, about Dennett, physicalism, and people who don't buy into idealism. You seem to put them down, almost Bentley Hart style. It's clear you believe idealism is true and that materialism is demonstrably false. Having said that, I greatly value your contributions and read almost everything you post as I consider you the most clear and scrupulous proponent of idealism and higher consciousness studies here.

That's an interesting take. Instead of oneself being a small part of the Universe, the Universe must instead be seen as being a small part of oneself. — Janus

This reminds me there's an ongoing discussion on woke that’s been a curious read, but it’s easy to forget how much the concept operates across all fields and orientations; as orthodoxy, as sets of axiomatic principles, often justified by universalising principles like equality, solidarity or reason, and sometimes by something closer to faith.

I'm not including you in this, although sometimes you do seem a little dogmatic for my taste. But then I'm reminded that you have a strong countercultural leaning, which I dig.

I think there’s room on this site for a different kind of discussion, where perhaps a third person helps facilitate a conversation between two members who don’t agree and seem to be talking past each other. I often wonder, with you and @Janus (and I probably align a bit more with him), whether a productive shift could happen with the right kind of facilitation.

What I think I see is that conversations on the forum often get stuck around 1) the justification of axioms, 2) accusations of misunderstanding or bad faith, 3) acrimony. It’s as if we’re hard-wired for conflict over difference. The worst offenders seem to call others liars and sophists when they are challenged by difference.

My interest on this site is probably trying to understand positions I don’t necessarily agree with, it's hard to do because one often ends up trying to defend one's own views on something along the way. The price we often pay for conversation.

Ha! I used to use that Wolfe title too, to describe rampant examples of managerialism at various workplaces I've been.

a) to not drink alcohol
b) to not go to the bar.
c) to not drink liquor at the bar (yeah, yeah, I know; what would be the point?)
d) to not drink more than two oz of alcohol over 2 hours time. Then leave, or switch to soda.
e) bring a designated driver with you, so that IF you were drunk, your driver could get you home safely.
f) receive treatment for alcoholism if you can't control your use of alcohol. The fact is, in so many ways life sucks. — BC

Fair enough - perhaps you left out C2) "to not be a cunt"

My take on it is that 'soul' simply refers to 'the totality of your being'. It includes your past, your future, your talents, skills, proclivities and inclinations - much more than just the ego, which is the mind's idea of itself. Interpreted that way, it is a meaningful concept. — Wayfarer

I think this is an interesting frame for the 'soul' idea. There's something wonderfully poetic about the term, which transcends words, yet somehow speaks to our sense of wholeness or being.

I don’t believe in a soul and haven’t encountered any arguments that convince me otherwise. I can understand how our dread of death has led humans to create pantheons and afterlife narratives.

But why care? What difference does it make if we have a soul or not? If we do, what’s the next step? Does it make life more worth living? Does it connect you to the religion of your family of origin? Does it allow you to convert to Hinduism? Does it chase away meaninglessness and uncertainty? Does the idea of a soul stand between you and some goal?

As I said earlier, we're too far apart on this, I’m not keen on formalism. Thanks for the chat.