Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact?
That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

What does existential self-awareness actually consist of? Does a recognition of mortality accompany it? When I first came to this realisation as a child my primary reaction was, why did I have to be born? In reversing the usual cliché about such matters, I often thought to myself that it might be bad luck to be born - to have to go through the laborious process of learning, growing, belonging (to a culture you dislike), experiencing loss, decline and ultimately death. It's not easy to identify an inherent benefit attached to any of this. But there's a lot of noise called philosophy and religion which seeks to help us to manage our situation.

What is anarchy and where has it worked before?

:up:

We’re all caught up in the throes of this, every day. — Wayfarer

No idea - is that what the discussion in this thread is about?

If the argument is that gods and religions are 'invented' to help us manage reality in some way, I see no reason why we would only invent comforting stories. Happy bedtime stories are not the only way to make meaning.

Sounds like Calvinism to me. — Wayfarer

Could be. But knowing Calvinists, it's hard to argue that they don't derive succour and meaning and purpose from their beliefs.

He's talking about Calvinism, a religious movement which turns God into a total psychopath. — BitconnectCarlos

Know it well, it's the religion of my father's family. But execrable gods are a dime a dozen. I fail to see how this worldview doesn't provide people with purpose and explanatory power. No matter how horrendous the religion's tenets, people always find a way to integrate them into how they make sense of the world at large.

But the idea that this is an "adaptive coping mechanism," then makes no sense in terms of some later religious developments, because they make the world both terrifying and unintelligible, the result of an unfathomable God who is beyond all human notions of good and evil, totally obscured by total equivocity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not entirely sure why you've ended up here or which god you are thinking of but I wouldn't arrive at this conclusion. A god may be irascible or capricious and above human comprehension, but simply knowing this is the case and having an identity for this god, a knowledge of its presence and some imperfect rituals to assist us in pleasing such a god, as best we can, is surely enough?

This is not only not reassuring, it makes man entirely helpless, and it makes all of reality bottom out in the completely unintelligible and unfathomable. Through the obsession with divine sovereignty, all of existence becomes a pantheistic expression of the divine will, which is itself beyond comprehension. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which god/s are you thinking of that work like this?

How does this explain, say, Calvinism where man has to be constantly worried about whether or not he is elect or destined to eternal damnation? Generally, in this religion, one has absolutely no ability to determine whether one will be saved or not, and one also knows that the overwhelming odds are that one is destined for eternal torment. There are also, traditionally, no ways to know for sure if one is truly elect.

Or how does it explain the many early religions in which the Gods are largely capricious and cruel? I am not sure how believing in an extremely powerful sky rapist who likes transforming into animals before committing his infamies is "reassuring." — Count Timothy von Icarus

You raise salient points. Although I don’t fully accept the original post, it could be argued that humans have an innate desire to understand and create a framework for supernatural realities—even if those frameworks are harsh. This need can provide reassurance by offering a way to make sense of our experiences and establish guiding principles for navigating the world. If our deities are perceived as cruel and unpredictable, might that not reflect the inherent harshness and unpredictability of nature itself? Our dream life doesn't have to be all sweetness and light for us to find reassurance, purpose, and a sense of predictability in the world.

There is a correlation between philosophers who reject abortion and accept only classical logic. What to make of that? — Banno

That is interesting.

Is there a correlation (from what you have seen) between those philosophers who privilege the classical tradition (ancient Greeks) and conservative politics?

Thank you.

The one area where identity might still be an issue is age. I liked being young and able much more than I like being old and unable. — BC

Yes, that's an interesting one. The kids at work now seek me out as a relic of a pervious era - 'What were the 1980's like, Tom? They must have been really cool.' I've never felt young, only inexperienced. Now I realise ignorance is forever and don't mind so much.

Was I born damned or only after I became an atheist?

Actually on reflection, from the position of some thinkers and the religion I was brought up in, the soul starts pure and good, so I guess I’m probably wrong about it’s essential nature.

. Also, immortality is an attribute, an eternal attribute. — praxis

The soul may be immortal, but that says nothing about whether it is damned or not. The soul's essential nature is subject to change - that's the bit I think you are missing. It's immortality is incidental. And for me it's the most relevant given the above discussion since the soul is not essentially saved or good. But I get your point.

To what extend do you feel you have been aware of, or preoccupied by your identity/ties over time? Is identity just a given that you don't really consciously explore, or is it something which you often think about? Personally I don't really have a strong sense of self unless I end up stuck at a function or dinner party and am made aware of how little I share with others - in terms of interests and inclinations.

Yes but the immortality is just one aspect of the soul - which can change and has no essential attributes. Freewill and all that. Anyway it doesn't much matter since I suspect neither of us actually believe in souls. Essentialism tend to mean that there are fixed attributes - such as biological essentialism on gender. The soul, if the literature is correct, can be corrupted or redeemed.

interesting- I’m not sure an immoral soul equates with essentialism unless you are saying that the nature of the soul is unchanging. Isn't the theory that souls can and do change - can be lost or redeemed, etc? I'm not in the soul business so this is entirely about the storytelling of such matters.

Psychology is no nearer related to philosophy, than is any other natural science.
The theory of knowledge is the philosophy of psychology.
Does not my study of sign-language correspond to the study of thought processes which philosophers held to be so essential to the philosophy of logic? Only they got entangled for the most part in unessential psychological investigations, and there is an analogous danger for my method. — Shawn

BTW - what is he actually saying here, it seems vague.

DKE is accurately characterized as 'the stupider a person is, the less likely they are to realize how stupid they are'
— Clearbury

Not necessarily true. I have known stupid people who admit they are stupid and don't try to compete intellectually. But it's not the definition of DKE. — jgill

Exactly. :up:

I know little about DKE, but I do know some stupid people and they are not all the same. It tends to be those who are arrogant as well as stupid, who showcase their stupidity by making 'dumb' assessments based on incomplete understanding. Lots of less smart folk are quite happy to say they don't have any expertise and 'don't know' something. I wish more people would acknowledge their ignorance.

Interesting. Thanks.

Apart from education as a formative process in the young mind, I would like to ask the reader about how does the reader suppose that knowledge can influence one's identity? My personal belief is that knowledge is a form of "memory" encoded in the brain, more specifically the hippocampus. With the process of education a person carries the memories of what they ought to do or become in a form of narrative that educators present about how the world works or latter in one's formative process what domain of knowledge a person is apt at in relation to the narrative of the educator. — Shawn

None of that really resonates with me. I have no significant sense of what I ought to do, only what I want to do or what might get me into trouble if I do it. When we actively engage with education, it often seems to be about providing ad hoc justifications for matters which already appeal to our preferences or to follow our disposition. We enjoy math - we study math. We enjoy reading - we study literature. Or in my case, don't enjoy anything at school - so I skive off and go into the city each day to smoke and look at buildings. But if you are just talking about school, say, for me it's the experiences and relationships that help shape identity, not the formal learning. My identity is based more on intuitions, attractions, repulsions and pleasure seeking than any conscious sense of knowledge.

There are so many interesting things you could describe about stimming routines. eg Baggs is pitch matching background noises with humming, but is a nonspeaking autist, why? What's the phenomenology there? What's the expressivity?

Calling it a language with a spoken component (the humming) when it's produced by someone who as a premise of the video cannot communicate in spoken language is hopelessly reductive and easily refutable. And for the purpose of normalising autism no less. — fdrake

@joshs Curious what your take on all this is given you posted it with a provocative question.

:up:

That's very funny. :wink:

think you nailed the competing interests here. Some are focused on more specific scenarios and situations, and me, I am focused on anything universal that might be gleaned from it. — Fire Ologist

Yes, this is interesting. Our values and interests are direct reflections of our dispositions. I'm not drawn towards totalizing principles or universal notions or even consistency in many cases.

Got ya. Thanks for clarifying.

So there could be reasons to value the life of an adult more than the life of a baby? — Fire Ologist

Could be. I don't know all the potential ideas/scenarios which might exist. I have certainly heard that amongst Aboriginal peoples in my country, infanticide was sometimes practiced because food was't plentiful enough to sustain babies and the adults of the tribe. But one can imagine some funky scenarios - war, crisis, famine, etc, where a baby might be assessed as being of less value than an adult. Overall situations are more significant to me than categorical imperatives.

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. A public figure might tell the public the truth in a manner that has negative consequences for himself, which shows genuine concern for the public. Although, sometimes crafty people can feign self-sacrifice for malicious purposes. — Brendan Golledge

Don't think so.

Abusive parents/partners may well shower their children/partners with money, presents, elite education, holidays and time. But they may still be abusive.

A public figure who tells a story which is negative (on themselves) may be part of a carefully choreographed plan to distract from something else or buy credibility on the basis that they must be truthful. I've seen this recommended and implemented by public relations/spin doctors.

As for intelligence, you can look for a consistent record of success. — Brendan Golledge

I think intelligence is fetishized by culture. As Stephen Fry ( a former Mensa member) recently said in an interview, really super bright people often lack basic living skills and may struggle to even 'sit on the toilet properly'. I guess what this quip meant is that 'brains' don't necessarily equate with skill and success, even if many super successful peopel do appear to be intelligent. I have a couple of friends who are close to genius and their lives are ruins.

Not that this matters but if I could choose between being in the top 2% of super bright individuals on earth, or be a happy postman in an attractive city, I would choose the latter. :wink:

No reasonable person could read all three beings as morally hte same, without doing some loop-de-loops which rest on embarrassment, basically. — AmadeusD

Doesn't this perhaps go to the point made by @Banno earlier that religion or essentialism are influencing such views?

What's your view on the OP? I've lost your position in all of these 35 pages.

What would you say to someone who basically agreed with you, but said they did not find newborns and infants as valuable as full persons? — Fire Ologist

I'd ask for and listen to their reasons.

Notice I’m more interested in what people think a person is and what people think a new life is in the abortion discussion, but not so interested in talking about the moral implications. — Fire Ologist

Cool I respect that and you put your case well. It's not an area that interests me. But I am interested in people who are interested.... if that makes sense.

But someone says a zygote isn’t an early moment in the one life of a human being, a person, and I’m interested in their reasoning. — Fire Ologist

I wouldn't argue that. I'd be happy to say it is a 'potential person', a partial journey towards personhood, if you like and therefore (for me) not as valuable as a full person. That's my call based on some pragmatic values. Not being a practitioner of philosophy, I'm pretty much blind to the infinities this kind of discussion can generate.

Newborns are barely different than a small fetus when it comes to making choices, awareness like a human adult, etc. I don’t see it to be consistent to say you value the fetus more after its birth. The fetus once born is as feckless as a lump of cells.

The values folks seem to already know the adult is the most valued and by the time you get to the zygote stage, you obviously have nothing at all that would be valued like the adult. But the phrase “zygote is obviously nothing like the adult” seems to be based only cursory, surface observation, and when this quick treatment is left as good enough for value judgments, it leads to what I see as inconsistent logic (who are all the humans) and inconsistent value judgments (why do we value infants like they are persons like Mrs Smith). — Fire Ologist

Doesn’t resonate with me. But thanks for taking the effort. I’m pretty good with us holding different views on this.

But I’m interested in asking you something else. Where do you sit on euthanasia?

I agree abortion ought to be permitted. What a pregnant woman does or does not do with her pregnancy and her body is none of anyone else’s business, particularly not the state. — Fire Ologist

Cool. We could even leave it at that. :wink:

I can’t conclude a human zygote lump of cells is anything other than a stage in the one life of on individual human being. Adults can be called lumps of cells too, so that doesn’t help. — Fire Ologist

This is probably a quesion of values. I don't particularly value such cells. An adult human being (Mrs Smith of the previous discussion) is in the world, interacting, making choices, exchanging views, is loved and has a history and her loss is likely to be palpable. The loss of some cells may have a psychological impact on the putative mother, but for me cannot be compared to the 'value' or status of Mrs Smith. If you disagree with this, I suspect it's because we see things differently and I suspect such a quesion of competing values cannot be reconciled.

I doubt if anyone would find this convincing. — Banno

I wasn't attempting to put the argument convincingly, just trying to understand the thinking.

The motivation for this is almost always theological. Occasionally it is inveterate essentialism. — Banno

Yes, that seems likely.

Presumably they do not like the conclusion, that abortion ought be permitted. — Banno

That certainly seems possible.

But is their reasoning as simple as:

A bunch of cells may become a human being, that's close enough to Mrs Smith for us to be unable to differentiate between the two?

These debates seem like interminable time wasters.

Whatever rights we might grant to a cysts, the rights of the woman carrying it ought take precedence. Mrs Smith is of greater value than a collection of cells.

I'm sorry you cannot see this. — Banno

I agree with this. The people who don't see this seem to want a justification beyond the obvious. What do you think is at the heart of this difference?

Arguably, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, a hallmark of many systems, seems to rule out brute facts. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Isn't the 'brute fact' at the end of this one a necessary being or a circularity? Is this an idea you believe has merit?

"that the order of becoming and existence must be intelligible; that no phase of the process of contingent existence is intelligible in itself; and that therefore contingent existence is always relative existence, essentially referred, qua existing to another.” — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't know what this means. I wonder if meaning and reason are human constructions or frameworks, how can we know that they are a part of 'reality' - whatever that might be.

let's call it phenomenological level in everyday life, right? We do somehow, sort of understand each other. Probably never to a "full extent", but somehow we do try. — KrisGl

Yep - kind of what I meant when I said -

we just make sense of others the best we can. — Tom Storm

To follow the notion that others are simply not our's to understand, to be radical about that would indeed lead to chaos. — KrisGl

Well, chaos is pretty big right now and seems to come down to people not understanding, hence the culture wars and tribalism that are at the heart of our conflicts. Richard Rohr, an interesting and radical Franciscan priest (I'm an atheist), says dualistic think is the limiting mindset which divides the world into binary categories like "us vs. them," "right vs. wrong," or "sacred vs. secular" - which generate internecine conflicts and violence. Anyway, see you on the threads.

It's well set out. I wonder how translations vary with him.

Interesting. Why have you always assumed that? — KrisGl

Intuition and experience. How could we truly understand each other, except through approximations? Many of us are strangers to ourselves, let alone to others...

Have you ever heard of his notion of loyalty to loyalty? I find it moving. — KrisGl

I know very little about it but I have to agree with Royce's basic thrust, as I understand it, that ethics is social and relational.

My own existence is certainly a fact - cogito ergo sum - but not of the kind that was mooted in the post I was responding to. After all, even Descartes himself noted that the existence of the world might be a spell cast by an evil daemon. — Wayfarer

Yep. I had in mind that for those who argue that "all is consciousness" this is amounts to a brute fact - they'd be claiming that consciousness is the foundational reality, beyond which there are no further explanations—it's simply taken as given. I would think that Kastrup, amongst today's more prominent idealists, might argue along these lines. But I think the term 'brute fact' is a bit on the nose and so people seem to talk more about the primacy of consciousness.