Nicely put and helpful. Especially this :

my own position, or commitment, is philosophical naturalism (which, as I understand it, begins with a hybrid 'Epicurean-Spinozist' immanentist ontology) and, in sum, proposes this: nature is the aspect of reality that limits (like the encompassing horizon) what we natural beings can know about reality given only natural capabilities for knowing (i.e. explaining) reality. A — 180 Proof

which makes the point that materialism is a good (even indispensable) theory for making sense of the world but may not be true, just as Newtonian Physics is a good (even indispensable) theory for making sense of the world but is not true. — Art48

It's interesting to me that humans make sense of the world with narratives and models which may often be useful but not be true. Philosopher Hilary Lawson (a minor figure in the world of ideas) says that we create models for intervening in the world which are effective but never describe reality. This process is iterative. The quest to find reality is like a substitute for god.

Here is a statement from a highly-regarded Catholic philosopher, Joseph Pieper, with whom I have only passing familiarity:

Our minds do not—contrary to many views currently popular—create truth. Rather, they conform to the truth of things given in creation. And such conformity is possible only as the moral virtues become deeply embedded in our character, a slow and halting process. We have "lost the awareness of the close bond that links the knowing of truth to the condition of purity.” — Wayfarer

I think this is ultimately why I am an atheist and you are some type of 'believer'. I think what we call reality (human thought and perspectives) are contingent artefacts (products of social construction and language) which more or less work pragmatically, and none of our experiences are 'true' in any transcendent sense. Truth is not about accurately representing reality but rather about what works within a particular context or discourse. God (or any analogue of god) lacks coherence or substance from where I sit, but is understandably used by many to fill the big hole of ignorance and fear most of us hold, not just about death, but also the fear that human life is essentially pointless. I think this is the joke whose punchline most people spend their lives resisting.

I know this is pretty much anathema for you - the height, perhaps, of post-enlightenment drivel - but I always find such perspectives exhilarating and unavoidably built into my experience of life.

.

But, to every person there is a unique identifier to be held about what or even why (which psychology addresses) some things are desired to be distracted from. Non-trivial to address. — Shawn

I've always felt this point needs sharpening. Why is it that some people seem to need substance use as a substitute for all other things? In talking to 'addicts' over the years, a common observation is that they would have suicided if it hadn't been for drugs. Their downfall is also their redemption.

Surely genetics must play some role, if not the occasional cameo. Not to suggest willpower or simple availability of the thing (convenience) isn't a factor, however. — Outlander

I don't know. I doubt willpower or the alternative, the AA cult, 'disease model' are the answer. 'Genetics' often seems like the catch all explanation that explains nothing. I suspect it has more to do with how life experiences (generally the traumatic) can rewire people's brains and make them uniquely susceptible. But I am no expert in addiction theory.

Anyway he said that the reason he got addicted to heroin, which damn near killed him, and did get him incarcerated at one point, was the attempt to re-create the experience of his first hit. He only really kicked the habit when he realised, many years later, and after many bad experiences, that it was never going to happen. — Wayfarer

I wonder if that's what he thought or if he was paraphrasing conventional AoD discourse. My background is in counselling and support for people with addiction issues. It's commonly held that people with heroin dependence are generally those chasing the remarkable experience of their first use. I tired heroin a couple times and while I find opiates remarkable (feelings of wellbeing) I had no reason to use regularly. The question remains why do some people become dependent and others do not? I suspect it is the same reason some people become dependent on food or shopping while others don't. Some people seem to have holes to fill.

I'm not sure what your question is.

A thought that ran through my mind was what do we think is the best long term future for consciousness? — Gingethinkerrr

Can you clarify what you mean here?

Are you talking about the future of human beings per say, or is there something about consciousness you are interested in? Perhaps it would help if you described a particular situation so that this is clarified.

Human experience - with emotional interpretation and our fragile understanding of creation — Gingethinkerrr

I don't like the word 'creation' as it implies a creator. I see no evidence of a creator. I would probably talk about our fragile understand and awareness. Or is creation/creator important to your question?

Which is the better suited to endure to the end of existence?? — Gingethinkerrr

What do you mean here? What does 'better suited' look like and what 'end of existence' are you imagining? The end of humans on earth (which is quite different to the end of existence) or do you mean something more totalising?

My own view is that humans might be wiped out (climate, disease, war). But the world and the universe is likely to go on. AI, I have no profound thoughts on, so far it's just a tool we've built and we don't really know if it will survive us.

I'd probably refuse a last meal.

So, what are your thoughts about this situation? Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.

Obviously drugs are fun. They are enjoyable. They offer experiences you can't easily get straight. I know from personal experience that a bottle of Chivas can make almost any event seem interesting and enjoyable. People too.

And there are numerous other reasons for substance use - which does not always lead to substance misuse. Not everyone becomes dependent on substances, licit or illicit.

People also take drugs to self-medicate, do assist in managing trauma and abuse, to deal with chronic boredom and feelings of emptiness, as a way to relax and find hope and joy in an otherwise bleak world. Taking the rough edges off neoliberalism and bullshit jobs might be a good reason to smoke weed, for instance.

Humans are always looking to find ways to augment or enhance daily life, whether through sport or the arts or substances. We don't as a rule like sitting in our room alone just thinking.

Huh?

I rate Kristofferson over Plato.

I admit that Emerson likes fancy-schmancy store-bought words, but I wouldn't consider that poetry. — T Clark

When it comes to complex ideas, I struggle with anything that isn't in plain English.

Yes, and I think those are exactly what Emerson and Chuang Tzu are talking about. — T Clark

:up:

This is freedom to me. From Emerson's "Self-Reliance."

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he.
— Emerson - Self-Reliance — T Clark

I can’t tell what any of that means. I’m immune to poetry… Nietzsche thought Emerson was a genius and they shared many themes. I'm immune to Nietzsche too. :wink:

I've never thought much about freedom and consider it a dubious and elusive phenomenon. I enjoy having few demands and obligations and a high level of personal autonomy. But I suspect the greatest bonds and restrictions are those we are not even aware of - our habits and patterns of thought, the way our culture and environment works through us, etc. Mostly I think of freedom as liberation from fear and suffering.

Now, assume that we do not have eternal life. Then we are completely gone for an eternity. We therefore also cease to exist to never live again - *ever.* Looking to the future, there is then an infinity of time ahead of us in which we don't exist. Isn't this also a scary thought? — jasonm

Like the rest of us, I have already not existed for billions of years, at least, and not a second of it bothers me. I have heard no good reason to believe in an afterlife, so the idea isn't coherent enough to be concerning.

I think a suicidal person doesn't think "he should die" but "he wants to die," which, I guess, is pretty different. — javi2541997

No. In my experience suicidal people arrive there by many different paths. Many are simply angry and perform that anger upon themselves. Others want to punish others (often family) by killing themselves. Some want to do it to make a bold statement and don't really think it through - as if they will be there afterwards to see how it went. And others want to do it because they have had enough. So it can involve anything from 'attention seeking' to severe depression and feelings of worthlessness. It can be an impulse decision, a response to situational crisis, or something deeper which has been ruminated over for many years.

Like other empirical knowledge, we invent these schemes and then discover their usefulness in our dealings with the world. The fact that we find them useful does not make them part of the fabric of reality, any more than our other invented technologies are a part of the fabric of reality. — Joshs

This has always been my assumption - but not being a philosopher, I assumed it was common sense - that most dubious of systems.

To say that numbers are the same for all who can count is merely to say that all who can count have already invented the concept of identical sameness, since counting depends on that concept. We have become so accustomed to the idea that the notion of repeated identicality is built into the universe that we forget how peculiar an invention it was, the imposition of a subjective idealization onto our experience ofnthe world that precisely ignores , prescinds from , the fabric of reality in order to create the illusion of pure difference in degree that is not at the same time a difference in kind. — Joshs

Nice. Thanks.

For Russia, communism was a grand; but, failed experiment, according to Google. — Shawn

Is democracy a grand but failed experiment?

But how can number and logic be aspects of the fabric of reality when what we think of today as number and logic were invented bit by bit over the course of cultural history? — Joshs

I guess that debate would focus on whether number and logic were invented or 'discovered'.

Thanks. Jungian archetypes would seem to belong to these universal cognitive structures too.

In fact what I think undermines Buddhist nominalism (although this is a digression) is that the Buddha himself is a universal kind. That is why Buddhism uniquely believes that Buddhas are a class of being, even if at the same time each one is a particular individual. (I've tried that out on Buddhist forums and it didn't go down well.) — Wayfarer

That is very interesting.

When the status quo means that the ultra-rich few dominate, it's not so difficult to see why populism is so widely popular. — ssu

Although it is harder to see how Trump, say, a member of the ultra rich and an obedient servant of corporate interests (lower taxes, deregulation, oligarchs, etc) will help any of the little guys who so love him.

Once in power, the leftist liberals and the social democrats in these countries are perfectly happy to mingle with the super rich and attend meeting like Davos and Bilderberg meetings. That hardly gives an impression that these leftists would be against the system to basically for the billionaires. — ssu

Leftists in the West seem to be neoliberals, with the odd whiff of progressive social policy. As Cornel West said of Obama - he was the Citibank President 'a black mascot of Wall Street.'

Of course there are movements here or there, but are they enough to make an impact? As you say there isn’t any unity. — EdwardC

But my point is that the zeitgeist is very much one of dissatisfaction with the status quo. Perhaps ultimately the collapse of the liberal consensus, as Žižek puts it. There are many ways to encapsulate this. And it might be a simplification to ever try to summarise any era.

But you didn’t explain the paragraphs I quoted- it’s hard to follow your syntax which seems vague. I’m interested in what you meant.

While certain ages had more prevalent and identifiable characters, ours is one that hides its nature, and maintains its values in a sub-active manner, that is meant to say without a title, or a movement, or party representation. — EdwardC

Why do you say this?

Isn't this the era or radical identity politics? The Right have religious nationalism, the Left have trans issues, decolonization, etc. And it seems this is also the era where 'no one knows who should be in charge' any more. Pluralism has finally marooned any semblance of unity.

A lot of what you write here seems inscrutable. For instance:

At this point, the civic body has undergone malaise, behaving in a way that transfers a state of imposed pacifism onto the general public even if they are invested in political affairs in that its offices are used for only menial tasks. — EdwardC

What does this mean? What is an example of this?

Many of the regulations in the corporate world, subject as they are to whim, which seem to be directed at some fictitious monster, only end up detracting quality men from beneficial financial situations, at best leaving them dependent on insufficient social programs, which brings me to my next point regarding pacifism and spiritual withdrawal. — EdwardC

It's hard to know what you mean. What would be some examples of this in action?

Sure. But I was interested in how the OP was using these terms.

Terms like conservative and libertarian and right wing seem almost meaningless these days. And we can be sure that almost any Western government's chief allegiance is not to the people but to corporations and banks. What was Gore Vidal's salient quote? "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings."

I wonder who'd get to pick up the soap.

Para. 1: Cultures shaped by forces. In some cultures clearly evident, in 21st century USA, not so clearly evident and even covert and contradictory.

Para. 2: Examples. In the US, a malevolent and subversive spirit working against Democratic ideals.

Para. 3: Historical roots of spirit, Pagan and hedonistic. Emphasis on wealth and display, and withdrawal and disengagement.

Para. 4: Democracies subverted by exaggerated and indulgent individual self-interest, fed by a few seeking profit and power.

Para. 5: Influence from - by - private persons, individuals, groups, corporate interests. Often with a public voice, but with covert resources and agendas, often anti-democratic.

Para. 6: Methods: hyper-sexualization and tribalism substituted for political engagement. Democracy rendered irrelevant.

Para. 7: Pop-culture a tool for subversion. Its appeal vitiating both the common sense and political power of the common man. Purveyors of pop-culture becoming more government-like, and their representatives politically empowered.

Para. 8: Corporate interests working against the common good.

Para. 9: Taxes increasingly for maintenance rather than for improvement and development.

Para. 10: Focus of civic energy on short-term irrelevancies of individual well-being. Broad-scale apathy and surrender of influence. — tim wood

Excellent. I think that covers it for me.

But aside from that I don't think I agree with an age having a 'deliberate' character in the sense that there is some cabal consciously and consistently channeling culture in certain ways to benefit from it... I think these things happen far more opportunistically and by accident than as the result of conscious deliberation. — ChatteringMonkey

Indeed. But we do seem to live in an era which is consistently selling the idea that this is the amongst worst eras imaginable and that deep state or secularism, liberalism, the Left or the lizard people are to blame. It seems we need to return to a golden era - for Trumpists it's the MAGA fantasy, for some philosophers it seems to be Platonism or God.

I believe in North American High Toryism instead of American conservatism. — BillMcEnaney

I don't follow politics. What is American high toryism and what is American conservatism and how do they differ?

Now, I don't mean to say that all people of these cultures act and value the exact same, and these are simply observations I myself and those around me have noticed, one must admit that there are different "objective" moralities around the world. — Frog

You've just raised the most common argument for relativism - the fact that morality varies from place to place and across time. Your examples appear less to do with morality and more about etiquette. Don't forget that treating women as chattel, having sex with children and owning slaves are accepted in some cultures too. Now and in the past.

But the usual response to this common argument is the fact that just because morals differ between cultures and over time does not imply the absence of objective morality. From this perspective the point is to determine which actions and moral positions are correct and which ones are not.

I would instead argue for a sort of cultural morality, wherein the morals of a person are shaped by their culture mainly, rather than being completely innate. — Frog

I tend to agree with this. But one can still evoke the naturalistic fallacy and maintain that just because people are shaped by culture does not mean this leads to correct moral thinking. So this still leaves us with the question which behaviours are morally justifiable and which aren't.

Is there a lot more passivity and ignorance than I once thought? Or is it just a self serving bias of specialness mixed with big-fish-in-small-pond syndrome? — Mikie

I would have thought that in the West at least, too many folk think of themselves as exceptional, with special skills and prodigious energy and positivity.

I’ve certainly noticed in industries I work in every second callow youth fancies themselves an innovative leader and ‘disrupter’. No one seems to want to do the grunt work; they want to be in charge. But the passion isn’t for the work, it’s for themselves.

This means, that a man feels good only when he lives better than others. — Linkey

I don't think this is right. It might be for some, but it doesn't resonate with me. I'm not sure what 'living better' looks like - what is better?

When we see that other people live better then we, the fact of their comfort makes us unhappy. — Linkey

I don't experience this. Most people seem unhappy to me, especially wealthy folks. To me the often vulgar displays of wealth ususally seem like unimaginative attempts to appear interesting or be liked. It's not really living better - it's chasing one's tail.

I think an inclusivity lens might tigger resentment for many - when we see that someone who is a pig and making the world a worse place is able to educate and feed their kids with ease, while someone who does the right thing, does menial work and can barely make ends meet. It seems outrageous that this happens. But I don't consider this envy. I consider this social justice.

In fact, the happiest people in the world live quite modestly, with few possessions. — Vera Mont

I don't doubt it. I met a lot of our local super rich in the 1980's when I worked for a fine art and antiquities dealer. Mostly they seemed frantic, lonely and glum.

You can imagine that Kant would have no truck with Aquinas' 'five proofs' or any of the other argumentarium of Scholastic philosophy. They would all be subject to the kinds of critiques he had of other rationalist philosophers. He was famously dismissive of the ontological argument ('existence is not a predicate'). I think intellectually he was very much a product of the Reformation, even if he then went even further than the Reformers in questioning the very existence of the Church. — Wayfarer

Nice.

:up:

It's very confusing. — Ludwig V

Ok thanks.

When I say I don't believe in god, I also hold that I don't have a robust idea what the idea of god/s even means. It's pretty hard to believe in something which seems incoherent or unintelligible. But not understanding - and therefore not believing - can not be held as knowledge (I would have thought).

There are many potential versions of god - from the magic space wizard (so beloved by Trump supporters), to the highest value in the hierarchy of values, as per Jordan Peterson.

Wouldn't it be the case that to be an atheist or a theist varies radically according to the kinds of god you are or are not believing in, which must surely also impact upon the belief knowledge/question?

There are four words we can use to adequately, discreetly and clearly delineate the four positions of relevance:

A. Theism=I know there's a God;
B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God;
C. Agnosticism = I cannot know whether there is a God; and
D. Anti-Theism = I know there is not a God. — AmadeusD

I've mostly ignored this thread recently but I do have questions.

B. Atheism = I do not know whether there's a God; — AmadeusD

Isn't the salient part of atheism's position, I don't believe in a god? It is for me. The 'not knowing' comes later and is somewhat tempered by something else, which I generally put down as; 'I have heard no good reason to accept the proposition that gods exist.' Other atheists would claim they do know there is no god - at least, no Yahweh or Ganesh or Allah.

And by the same token isn't a theist someone who believes there is a god? I have a number of theist friends, including priests and rabbis, who would actually count as agnostic theists. They would never say that they know god exists. They would say they believe and have faith. A few of them are even open to the idea that they might be mistaken in their faith. I think many more sophisticated thinkers might self-identify as theists but might be considered atheists by people with different world views - generally because their belief isn't literalist.

Art is any Fictional representation presented to human senses, the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

Why the word 'fictional'?

But presented as it was by Duchamp, it was a Fictional representation, its function to make us feel, and we did/do feel. — ENOAH

Fictional?

Not sure what you are getting at with this word. Do you mean a creative representation?

Duchamp was making a provocative statement about the nature of art and the artist. In 1917 this was a radical move. It was a stunt. A comment on art and perhaps not art of itself, depending upon one's reading.

the sole function of which is to trigger a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation/trigger. — ENOAH

I don't think this is right. To say art has a sole function is too limiting. So is the idea of it's 'triggering a notable feeling without having recourse to any other explanation.'

Art often relies upon other art or myth or religion, or stories or history for its effect or context.

At its simplest, art is something presented for aesthetic appreciation.

Actually the original is lost. Duchamp made seventeen copies in the 1960's, each of which is worth a few bob. — mcdoodle

Indeed. Just imagine the value of the original if found.

Thank you. No doubt others will think my take is wrong headed. :wink:

Somehow, creative people produce objects and performances that move or inspire or enrage or enthrall other people. And those creations, however much or badly they're reproduced and imitated, become part of the culture that ennobles and enriches us, in which we feel we have a stake, of which we are proud. — Vera Mont

But I doubt whether art is just this. I also imagine that art may bore us, make us complacent, erode cultural value and make us feel ashamed. At least that's my experience of a Tarantino film or a book by Brett Easton Ellis. :wink:

Really, why do we ask or care about what is art? — ENOAH

Probably because humans are emotional creatures and many of our best moments are when we experience some form of aesthetic satisfaction or joy. The arts are important to most people, so it stands to reason we want to be able to define art. We probably hope to explain the magic trick.

But also great things emerge out of these seemingly pointless pursuits. — ENOAH

Agree.

Fair points. I tend to think there is art in most things. Even things I dislike greatly. I agree that art is difficult, perhaps impossible to define. And for me, irrelevant to my aesthetic experiences (of art). The great religious commentator Karen Armstrong has argued that religion can't be adequately defined. I suspect there are many such subjects. I tend to avoid the types of people who are definition obsessed. Useful in some places, pointless in others.

Now I generally avoid participating in those types of discussions unless I have something constructive to contribute. When I don't I usually regret it and often behave badly. Who needs it. — T Clark

I think providing push back is useful in philosophical discussions. But it depends upon whether the pushback provokes useful questions or not. For me, the most important quesion in most subjects is why does it matter? That's not an attempt to shrug something off, it's an attempt to capture the essence or nub of the matter. I hope.

Why do we care?
We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump;
We pay more for art;
We fund art; we don't fund game shows;
We study art and consciously allow it to influence history;
Etc. — ENOAH

I consider Duchamp's R Mutt urinal aka "Fountain" to be a great moment in art. But you can't really repeat this and have the same impact despite what Tracey Emin might think. So much modern art being footnotes to "Fountain".

Many of your questions are resolved by the market.

We take steps to preserve art; urinals, we send to the dump; — ENOAH

Not 'Fountain' - that thing is worth millions. But much art is thrown away and burnt too. Often art is only kept because it has a significant monetary value.

We pay more for art; — ENOAH

More compared to what? Not sure this is true. And if it is, it will depend on the art in quesion and that is a often matter of how the market functions. Which has nothing to do with art per say. That's commodification and capitalism.

We fund art; we don't fund game shows; — ENOAH

We don't fund all art and the choices made are those of the market, ditto game shows. Game shows are funded. They are funded by corporations who provide the products and advertising opportunities. Not dissimilar to when Van Gough or Rembrandt go on a world tour of galleries.

We study art and consciously allow it to influence history; — ENOAH

We consciously allow non-art to influence hsitory. A hamburger joint can influence history. And as for study - we study all manner of things. I know a guy with a PHD in Julie Andrews.

We pay attention to art... — ENOAH

We pay attention to porn and horse racing.

art is any creation — ENOAH

which, — ENOAH

when presented to one or more of the senses, triggers profound — ENOAH

inner feeling or drive to act — ENOAH

Your definition is no worse than many others. But I can sit in front of many paintings and have no feelings or reaction to it. Does this mean they aren't art? There's a lot of music which I find irrelevant and don't have a reaction to. Etc.

I don't think how we react has a clear relationship to whether something is art. You can have a profound emotional reaction to an empty bird's nest in a tree. Does this make it art?

I find this kind of discussion interesting and helpful because it lets me sort out how different kinds of creations affect me in different ways, how I experience them. It's about self-awareness. — T Clark

Self-awareness for you, and perhaps mental masturbation for others. Just because I am questioning isn't an indication that I am not taking the discussion seriously. Don't mistake skepticism for a lack of interest. My journey towards self-awareness is trying to determine which debates are useful. :wink:

Some clarifications are useful and help us to manage our lives.

Imagine we did agree on what "art" means - what meaningful conversation could you build out of that agreement? You show me that, and I'll show you how to build that conversation WITHOUT agreeing on what "art" means. Deal? — flannel jesus

Interesting. I'm not sure the endless debate about what art, is or what it is not, matters. Except to people who fetishise definitions or aesthetics. Could there be a less useful subject? I'd be interested to understand from you why the term art matters so much to some people. Seems to me that some seem to want to reserve the word as a magic charm which can only be waved over certain approved phenomena.