Has anyone else here had a sense that what they were experiencing in early life wasn't truly real or that it was highly stripped down? — TiredThinker

When I was a child in the 1970's, I certainly 'felt' that reality (specifically my experience of it) was in some way manufactured and wasn't entirely real. That was certainly an acute feeling when I went into the Australian outback. I often wondered if there was some way to get 'behind' it all.

There's also the matter of Kastrup's 'dissociated alters' which explain individual (constrained) experiences of consciousness as tiny slithers of the great mind.

There's three paragraphs in your essay I need to consider more deeply and I'll get back to you.

As for as Kastrup’s idealism - I do question the ‘mind at large’ idea in this essay - Is there ‘mind at large’? - although it’s quite a long piece so don’t feel any obligation. — Wayfarer

That's a very nicely written essay which sits well as a companion piece to your first essay. Excellent work.

Without the organising capability which consciousness brings to the universe, what exists is by definition unintelligible and unknowable. The mind brings an order to experience in light of which data is interpreted and integrated into meaningful information — this is an intrinsic aspect of the meaning of ‘being’. But the sense in which the universe exists apart from or outside that activity is by definition unknown, so there is no need to posit a ‘mind-at-large’ to account for it. We need to learn the humility to accept that the unknown is indeed the unknown, and not to try and fill in the blank with a mysterious ‘super-mind’.

This seems to take us back to Kant's noumenal world, right?

I guess most of our great debates here seem to find their origins in the speculative thinking about this 'unknown, unknown'. Your solution to this is (as you put it) a convergence between cognitivism and philosophical idealism. Do you consider phenomenology, in some of its guises (perhaps the neurophenomenological of Francisco Varela) to be a compromise between your position and one shaped by embodied cognition?

orgive me for my specific interpretation. I don’t think my view on this (or, if there is a God, the truth of it) actually matters to the post, but I’m willing to share my justification.
Honestly, I just defaulted to a monotheistic human-like God concept because that is the God I believe in, but I agree that an open mind is important when discussing this. — Igitur

Just trying to understand your reasoning, Which gods you think are the real gods probably does matter when you are trying to please these gods. It seems you are concerned with doing the right thing by a particular god. How would you even begin such a process? Wouldn't it be important to establish which god is true before working to try to please that god - or those gods? How have you determined that the god you believe in cares how you conduct your life? Do you have a generic Judaeo-Christian deity in mind?

What are your thoughts? — Igitur

I see no reason to accept the idea of any gods. I do believe that humans fear the reality they see before them, especially death, and find themselves doing any number of things to manage their fears - rituals, prayers, gods - all seem to emerge from such anxieties.

I reason that if so, God likely doesn't care if you follow a particular religion, but only if you act according to the correct concepts — Igitur

You seem to hold to a fairly conventional idea of a god. A single god? Why not 2 or 16? A god who is anthropomorphic and pays attention to us and has 'correct concepts'? Why not an indifferent god such as the one of deism? Why not a cosmic consciousness version of theism, such as held by William James?

What reason do you have for believing in your particular account of god?

Why does the rational person choose the worse over the better in this situation? — Count Timothy von Icarus

I have no idea. I'm not sure if I have met any rational persons. Or even what this means. I have met people who use reasoning and have post hoc justifications for their choices. I suspect most people's choices are informed by emotion.

that's more an example of not knowing that not caring though, don't you think? — Dan

No. I wonder what it means to know a moral truth?

Or maybe he’s a trust fund baby with nothing better to do with his cash. — Joshs

I'd be very interested in your general view of this project? To me it seems to be built around a series of old school foundationalist assumptions. Thoughts?

You don't think that someone can understand what's good or right and choose against it? That someone can intentionally do what they know is wrong? — Dan

To some extent, yes. But how do they understand 'wrong'? It will be in the context of some aspect of culture. One they might not care for much. Something may be 'wrong' as far as mainstream culture and the legal system is concerned, but how does this ultimately matter? I've worked a lot with hard core criminals and they have a very strong principles. They are just (as far as the mainstream is concerned) the 'wrong' principles.

Yes. Is it Aristotle? For some the philosophical project is presumably to dispel ignorance.

My issue is not just this notion of 'ignorance', but also flourishing and good? Can we demonstrate that these are any more than abstracts used to loosely describe contingent matters of social practice , etc.

Flourishing strikes me as an enormously nebulous category.

In general, I think defining ethics in terms of freedom can work, since free beings—unconstrained by ignorance or circumstance—will chose what is good, what causes them to flourish, etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Why do you say this? Can it be demonstrated?

On the other hand, even if I’m entitled to a personal view, I’m fully aware that not having any letters after my name sorta limits my scholastic value. — Mww

I haven't noticed scholastic value being a priority here.

It is merely an altogether fundamental, hence necessary condition, by which certain types of relations are possible, and these relations pursuant to aesthetic judgements alone. — Mww

So is the OP an attempt to provide a foundation for morality which somehow manages to quantify or capture freedom as something more than a contingent set of relations?

What is your view about a problem like this? Any suggested directions?

I don't think the challenge is in principle possible to provably solve, because value doesn't seem to be a universally objective measure — flannel jesus

Yes, I agree with you.

I don't beleive in moral facts (I don't deny them, but I have heard no good reason to accept the notion) and any underlying axiom we select as foundational for our moral thinking is likely to be a matter of personal preference. The moment we identify some 'foundational truth' isn't it the case that this is built out of values we already find appealing?

Turning morality into a spreadsheet or a flowchart of equations seems to be a futile endeavour. While I am not a philosopher, it would seem to me that moral decisions pivot on empathy, context, and deep ethical considerations (built from culture, experience and language) that go beyond what can be captured in formulas and algorithms.

I could boil the problem down to "how do we resolve conflicts between the freedom of different persons over things choices that belong to them?" but it that question very helpful without the context, hence the non-computer-exploding document. — Dan

I'm not sure what you are asking.

Isn't this dilemma just a situational curiosity which underpins human life - particularly in multi-cultural, pluralist societies? Can there be a just way to resolve disputes when people’s rights or preferences clash? Would there not be a number of 'mechanisms' one could implement?

Are you expecting there to be a correct answer and how will you know it when you see it? How do you determine what is just? Is there an underlying assumption that for this to work you need to be a moral objectivist?

Well, I only say that ethics seems to originate from the suffering of others that one may be able to identify with, either through experience or tacit knowledge. — Shawn

That seems fair.

Yes, I believe that through compassion or empathy, people can find a common goal to which they might aspire towards — Shawn

If this is true, then it would also seem to hold for hatred and resentment.

I'm more in the Hume camp, where people have to have an impetus other than strict rationality to motivate themselves with respect to morality and ethics. — Shawn

I am inclined to hold that the foundation of morality is more deeply rooted in emotional affectivity than in rational deliberation.

Mankind can only hope that there is enough empathy and compassion within itself to recognised our shared struggles. Without such an attitude, what more is existence; but, a show of vanity and pride. — Shawn

Vanity and pride? What you are suggesting seems to correspond to sociopathy, which is often so indifferent towards others that vanity and pride may be irrelevant to its experience. Perhaps you are hinting at hedonistic narcissism?

Yet, not every person grows up to see the suffering of humanities existence. — Shawn

I think most people, if not all, are aware of suffering and pain. Some just don't care. And some enjoy (or perhaps appreciate) the suffering of others, possibly as a way to set themselves apart from the losers.

So, if it is really the case that man must go through some affair, be it positive or negative, to understand what man-kind faces, then what is the proper way to have the discussion about ethics? — Shawn

I don't see how there would be a 'proper' way to talk about ethics? This seems rigid. Wouldn't it be more likely that ethics is a conversation which involves culture, language and experience and could be arrived at through a range of entry points? Some of these more useful for certain circumstances than others.

Are you suggesting that our experience of humanity (or of being) is enough to allow us to be fully are of our common humanity, which leads to solidarity (or empathy)?

Do you have reason to believe in moral facts?

When justifying your own actions or statements, according to what factors do you formulate your argument?

On what grounds do you decide whether a justification is appropriate and valid? — Vera Mont

I don't. I have never been asked why I chose to do a particular thing in moral terms. I generally just do it (feel my way through) and, if pressed, can provide post hoc justifications.

Like all of us, I hold presuppositions or axioms: to promote human flourishing; not to cause suffering. But such principles and the justifications they can engender are interpretive and lack precision. I see morality as essentially a code of conduct that is an evolving conversation over time. It is never conclusively arrived at, is subject to continual revisions and has variations across communities.

I'm not an American, but my colleagues and I have been wondering if a shooter would appear at a Trump event for some time. The fact it happened is not very surprising given the emotion surrounding this politician. I imagine also that preventing these sorts of events is not an exact science. Cue conspiracy theories and general bullshit.



Indeed. Although his base are more likely to talk about Isaiah 45:13. (NIV)

I will raise up Cyrus in my righteousness: I will make all his ways straight. He will rebuild my city and set my exiles free, but not for a price or reward, says the Lord Almighty.”

:up: and it can have brutal effects upon people.

I see no demonstration of karma and it is of no use to me as a concept.

accepted your post as the answer to this thread; but, wanted to further ask, if inference based off of causality is something that only humans can do, (is it called 'backwards rationality')? — Shawn

You'd need to ask an expert. Inferential thinking (making connections between seemingly unrelated pieces of information to draw conclusions) appears to be part of the behavior of animals like family pets. They know that if a drawer opens and a lead is picked up, it means a walk. They know that the fridge opening means food. And animals who have been abused will often cringe when a person raises their hand. They can often and mysteriously tell when the owner is arriving home - even when unscheduled. And much more complicated behaviors. But what does this tell us about making connections, intentionality and pattern recognition?

Seems a fairly straightforward matter. Humans look for order and predictability to manage their environment. We see that most things, if not all, appear to be caused. Hence the quesion who caused reality? The idea of a sky wizard or cosmic mummy seems to be a reasonable supposition. And in more sophisticated terms, the idea of a cosmic consciousness seems reasonable too. The unassailable human drive to make sense and identify patterns (our innate apophenia) would seem to suggest that we need to understand the world in terms that already make sense to us. Creation and causality seem to be built into our cognitive apparatus.

No idea what varieties of animal cognition allow for but it can be observed that unlikely animals relate to another species of animal for their mother or their offspring.

Do you mean our knowledge and understanding could just as well degenerate as improve? — Janus

Yes, that was my read of the response. I guess that sounds fair.

What I have observed is that a little bit of philosophy can mess with people'e thinking and relationships. You know the kinds of thing, the bumptious young men who think they are Nietzsche's heirs, the enervated Rorty acolytes who can't commit to anything at all. The elitist Platonists who... maybe I'll just leave that one there.

Seems to me that one's disposition is important here. I've never been drawn to philosophy (by this I mean deep reading/studying) But I am interested enough to want an overview of key themes and directions. And I certainly understand that we are all the product of philosophical presuppositions, but so what?

The idea of exploring what is the good or truth or the nature of wisdom seems pretty tedious to me and does not match how I experience life. Critical thinking takes care of these matters pragmatically. Perhaps what it comes down to is this - I am not trying to solve any mysteries of existence or engaged in a poetic quest for self-knowledge. Sorry, rant over.

Has the philosopher outgrown the need for stories? — Fooloso4

I'm not entirely sure what this quesion involves. Isn't human knowledge a story, or a series of interrelated, overlapping narratives? Can you say some more on this?

Not sure. I have no theory of truth. But mostly it seems to be contingent and an artefact of human culture and linguistic practice.

I guess I prefer the frame of intersubjective communities of agreement such as @Joshs posits.

Billions of theists for thousands of years, since the time of the Shaman and medicine man - all of them so unsophisticated. — Fire Ologist

I think that might be an exaggeration and I see why you or others might argue this. I would say that people generally are unsophisticated. Including atheists. The worst atheists are those who argue that because the Bible stories are myths that this disproves god. This does not make any sense and doesn't take into consideration the long history of allegory used to understand spirituality and our relationship to the divine.

Is unsophisticated bad? It can be, but not always. Sometimes it can be an advantage. I think it depends on where that unsophistication leads you.

That seems to be a very good account of morality.

I find it interesting how often unsophisticated theists I have met think that if there is no god than everything is permissible (presumably borrowing from Dostoyevsky). I recall Slavoj Žižek making the entirely reasonable riposte that, 'If there is a God, then anything is permitted'. Given the atrocities which take place in theism's name it's clear that all too often the most dangerous and unethical people on earth have been theists.

Do you think that the development of morality is a significant aspect of our evolutionary trajectory? We are stronger in groups and groups are stronger when there is mutual respect, predictability and safety. Any thoughts on this?

Ok. That's the pop understanding of "naturalistic fallacy". — Banno

Cool. That's the only one I have heard of.

The naturalistic fallacy in philosophy "is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties". Saying that the good is what is pleasurable, or what makes the greatest number of folk happy, and so on. — Banno

Ok, that's interesting. I wouldn't know G.E. Moore from Dudley Moore. I've just read a ChatGPT account of it but I still don't quite understand the concept.

Maybe what I was thinking of was the is/ought problem.

I'm no philosopher, so I may be wrong. I was alluding to it here because people will argue that because nature can be understood as violent and full of suffering it is therefore ok for humans to behave in ways which cause violence and suffering. It's natural and ipso facto ought to be allowed.

Human actions are what we have control over, and so we ask what we should do. — Banno

Seems clear.

While I don't want to invoke the naturalistic fallacy, it's hard for a human to look at nature and think that we inhabit a fair world.

Nature is a bloodbath predicated on killing and suffering. Animals slowly devour each other alive over hours, enduring extreme pain. Babies of animals and birds are torn apart and eaten by predators in front of their mothers. The mere weather regularly freezes or burns to death scores of creatures. Something deplorable is happening in our backyards as I write. Imagine an omnipotent deity who decided that of all the methods possible for creating life, he'd settle on one where suffering and predation are built into the fabric of reality.

I agree we don’t have any certain way (that comes from anyone else but our own selves) to establish how God wants us to behave. God doesn’t send everyone text messages. How we each decide to actually behave and what we actually do is for each of us alone, even alone from God. So I can sit with that part of the quote.

I also agree that when we are together talking about how we might behave, building moral systems together, we struggle to interpret the words and traditions. And this debate among even members of the same religion, is really the same activity (just a different subject) as people discussing the best government or best economy, or even the best interpretation of any data into any system. — Fire Ologist

That's all I am saying. At last we got there. :wink:

By destroying other people's hope, they cause untold damage. The step from unbeliever to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do, is to project one's own despair onto others. It even works because misery loves company. — Tarskian

That's hilarious.

Might as well say this of theism:

By destroying people's freedom and ability to think, theism can cause untold damage. The step from believer to satanically evil is very small. All one needs to do is project one's own nihilism and religious absolutism onto others. It even works because fanaticism craves converts.

Well I understand you don’t believe in god or religion, — Fire Ologist

While this is true, it does not go to the argument I have been making.

This is, perversely, actually an argument I first heard in the Baptist community I grew up in. It came up in the context of Christians who thought gay people were destined for hell and that homosexuality was against god's morality.

So here it is, one more time: Religions disagree about god's moral system. Even within the one religion people can't agree about how god wants us to behave. Theists therefore have no access to an 'objective' or god given moral system. Our Chaplain put it something like this - 'The faithful are in the same position as the secular humanist. We can debate what is right and wrong and we, as Christians, can invoke god's name, but we don't have any certain way to establish how god wants us to behave. Only the literalists will make such an argument and even they will be at odds over the conclusions.'

All the religious person can do is interpret scripture or respond from personal perspectives regarding how they 'imagine' god wants them to behave.

Again - this is not about the nature of theism or atheism, it's about the nature of moral systems which can help but be pragmatic, adaptive and evolving.

I don’t blame you for ending the conversation. It’s actually is an example of the point I was making. — Fire Ologist

Explain.

I think we should end this discussion for now. We are talking past each other.

I am not talking about objective truth. Whether it exists or not is irrelevant to my point.

Take care - TS

Some very useful responses. Cheers.

Im not wasting my time spinning wheels talking about what is correct and what is not correct about truth and morality when, if I was an atheist post modern thinker, the end of every conversation is “well we’ll never know, all we can do is make up our best, and go on with our lives in our bubbles of bullshit.” — Fire Ologist

Well, if you stick to such straw men then this conversation won't go anywhere. And what's with the wacky Jordan Peterson style utterance? Isn't his bogyman the 'postmodern Marxist?

My argument does not take into consideration postmodernism, of which I know little. It does not explore atheism, as this not relevant to the points made. It does not take into consideration what truth or objectivity are - different subjects entirely.

These are points you seem to have raised to distract from my key argument which is even if you grant there might be gods you can't demonstrate which one is real or what god's moral system is. That's all. In other words to say god is the source of morality is functionally irrelevant since there is no agreement about what that morality is or which god is true. There is no objective morality from god you can point to.

So it's clear that the atheist and the theist can both do little more than explore morality through an ongoing conversation and via a community coming to agreements about the behaviours we believe avoid suffering and promote flourishing. Which is pretty much what we do.

I have not said theists are full of shit, just that they can be no closer to an objective morality than a non-believer. It’s subjective any way you go.

All you’re doing here is saying god equals objectivity. But you can’t demonstrate a single belief any god holds regarding morality. Pretty sure you can’t point to a single objective truth about that god. And you certainly can’t demonstrate a god.

It also doesn’t follow that if there are gods that they are (or that they create) morality itself. For all we know a god might simply identify what is good, but not be the source of it. How would we know?

Not sure why you brought up Nietzsche or science. I haven’t raised them, nor do I have much interest in either.

My point is a simple one. We have no way of knowing what any gods want from us. I am not putting this up against any other system, certainly not science, which can make no value statements or proclamations about truth.

In relation to morality, a theist has no more access to an objective morality than a secularist.

You have to remeber, we're playing by THEIR rules. You can't just question the Abrahamic God if we've established it exists - and not be wrong. — AmadeusD

But THEIR rules contradict each other. I would argue that it's far from clear what the characteristics of the Abrahamic god are even to believers. For one thing, is the Bible still a series of allegories in this reality? Which stories are accurate and how do we deal with contradictions?

If the Abrahamic god is real then we still don't know what that god wants unless it says something to us directly. What if his god were real and appeared to us saying - 'The Bible was an attempt to capture my nature for a less sophisticated time. Much of the stories were misconceived and misunderstood.'

IFF an Abrahamic God exists, then there we have objective facts from on high. — AmadeusD

I'm not sure about that. If this god exists then it would still be a series of confusions and mysteries. Which parts of the Koran and the Bible would be accurate and which bits not? How would contradictions be understood? Was Jesus god or a man? God might be established as an objective reality, but we still wouldn't be able to determine if this god was good (the Abrahamic god seems to operate like a mafia boss). Does god like what is moral, or is the good that which emanates from god's nature. How would we know?

Where? When? Who? Effectively? — Fire Ologist

The Declaration of Human Rights.

And I have worked for social justice organisations that were secular, busily providing health and housing services for people experiencing homelessness and mental ill health. In fact, in my city during the 1990's it was secular charities that made religious charities stop treating disadvantaged folk as lepers to be patronized and dragged the welfare system into the present, from a kind of bleak, Dickensian charity model, so beloved by many Christian welfare services.

That’s the illogical part to me. If three people agree there is no god, there is no objective truth, there is no access to reality as it must be for all, then they should also agree that they have no idea whether each of them mean or agreed on the same thing - collaboration in philosophy and ethics becomes pointless. — Fire Ologist

It's illogical to you. It makes perfect sense to me.

No theist can identify objective truth either. They can only point vaguely to some amorphous god idea (as nominally foundational to whatever they think is real) a deity no one understands in the same way or expects the same things from. Religious wars and internecine conflicts between religions and sects within religions demonstrated pretty clearly that theism offers no advantages to secular thinking when it comes to building a shared understanding.

I’m just saying if I was an atheist, morality and truth talk would seem pointless. — Fire Ologist

But if you are not an atheist how can you fairly come to that view? You would appear to lack the grounding to make that claim.

if I was atheist I would be an anarchistic, hedonistic sociopath — Fire Ologist

There are plenty of such people within the world's religious traditions. I don't think a little thing like god changes people's wiring.

Democracy and capitalism were once the greatest hopes we crafted as collaborations for the community, and today, many think they are evil and doomed to corruption. — Fire Ologist

People seem to be addicted to stories of doom and end of times. Media has fed us a steady diet of apocalypse stories for many years.

To me, it’s because we collaborate at all about anything that we experience the possibility of God. God is in the collaboration. So you take God out of it, the collaboration falls with it. — Fire Ologist

Well clearly this isn't the case because secular humanists have long plugged away at building ethical frameworks quite consistently and effectively, without need for gods. But I get that for you personally (and many other theists) this may seem incomprehensible.