How does that compare to the average person? — Beverley

36% more than the average. :wink:

Candyland sums up their relation... Camus was not an existentialist. — Banno

Didn't matter in 1980's Melbourne.

Existentialism only works until you take it seriously. — Banno

We'll that's not much different from most ideas, I'd suspect.

How do you take existentialism seriously? That seems to be the real quesion that the OP leads us towards.

In the 1980's there was a reemergence of existentialism around Melbourne and many people I knew would walk around with copies of Being and Nothingness and Camus' The Outsider, with no more commitment to the ideas inside them that they would have a few years later to the ideas Foucault and Derrida, when copies of their works were carried about.

No idea. Most people who use the term to describe themselves seem to pronounce it more like a magic word than with much knowledge about it. I find it ironic when someone claims to have captured the essential existentialism.

To be blunt - my specialist area - those who have answered "yes" to the question in the OP have thereby shown that they have not understood existentialism. — Banno

Say some more - only thing I came away with from Sartre was the familiar - existence precedes essence.

Can one call oneself an existentialist without irony?

:up:

Well if so, name at least one non-contingent, or impossible to change or be changed (i.e. necessary), fact. :chin: — 180 Proof

You're exactly the person to ask this of in relation to the old, something from nothing trope. My question is: as far as we know everything in our universe is contingent - but what of potential realities outside of this, outside of our knowledge? Or before the singularity, etc? Do we know enough about reality to know if contingency is a necessary phenomenon?

I think so.

Trump and Clinton for example have been attending the same events and power groups for decades. So, you get a slightly to significantly loose cannon elite member when you vote for a populist. Why is this so? — Bylaw

From my perspective anyone who can be in a position to become president is an elite. Left and right mainstream are just differently wings of the same neoliberal elite.

I would imagine that one form of populism might also embrace wanting to end wars, invest in schools, housing infrastructure and health care, reduce military spending and tax the wealthy, That form of populism seems to be quashed.

Well, for starters, it's unavoidable and, for the most part, out of our control, so why worry about it? Given death's inevitability, make the best use of your time here and now. Hence: “It is not death that a man should fear, but rather he should fear never beginning to live.” —Marcus Aurelius

I'm not a Stoic - more an Epicurean if I must have a classical orientation - but I intuitively arrived at the above position on death when I was still a boy. I revisit it every now and then (as friends and relatives die) but I can't move past this.

Good idea, although on a secular forum, it's rather like tossing bits of bloodied meat into the Piranha River. ;-) — Wayfarer

Yes, I was wondering about consequences too. But it might be good if in the OP we specify that this is not for secular polemics or atheist grenade throwing. As an atheist, I would appreciate a more nuanced awareness of the various notions of god in more accessible language. I found Paul Tillich very interesting back in the 1980's but I have forgotten most of what I read.

I've also often thought that some atheists and theists could form an 'alliance' around a more sophisticated understanding of god and take an assertive but respectful anti-fundamentalist position together. Bishop Shelby Spong did a good job of this a few decades ago. We really need Christians and Muslims to come out against this stuff, rather than just atheists. But that's another matter.

I'm sorry if you are not aware - I did not make this up. — AmadeusD

I referred to this phenomenon already, so I must be aware, right?

And then you proceed to dismiss my awareness of this issue as per below. Are you in a hurry?

It is extremely important to the crux of this issue. Ignoring the factor of mental illness, delusion and the violation of others rights based on it, is, ironically, the half of the story you refuse to acknowledge in the discussion. — AmadeusD

Half the story? Or 35%. Or is it 10%, or...?

I've already said in my view the fact that there are people who are unwell and make other claims based on identify should not impact upon those people who are trans with their specific claim. I don't think this is hard.

There are adult babies. They claim their identity in exactly the same way trans people do. — AmadeusD

The key point you are missing is that they are not trans. So it actually has nothing to do with the specific claim of trans people. You're invoking a slippery slope fallacy again. Many people go to the doctor and claim back pain without having any in order to get out of work. This does not mean that there are people don't experience back pain and need support. As my doctor will tell you physical evidence for the cause of back pain is not always available.

THe fact that you have some store of 'trans bigotry talking points' makes it absolutely clear you are not being reasonable or sensible here. You've taken a position, you're afraid to mvoe from it and you're now deploying buzz words of social opinion to impugn a position based on fact. — AmadeusD

Nice attempt to turn it around. You are 'absolutely clear' about nothing in relation to my opinions on this issue. I was identifying that a well known anti-trans talking point was raised by you. How do I know it is a well worn anti-trans talking point? Because it comes up almost every time people have anti-trans conversations - on line, on TV, in the media, in person. You're not the only one to pull this out.

I also think that your attempt to psychologise my approach is unprofessional. You are in no position to know my motivations, so please don't do this. Stick to the arguments. I'll try to do the same.

But this discussion is interminable.

I'd be interested in understanding what is your opinion should society do in relation to transgender issues? Can you provide a few dot points regarding a useful framework. For me, the issue is trans is here, how do we support people?

But then for a great part of its history, Biblical religion was addressed to illiterate agrarian and farming communities, and had to be presented through myth and allegories that this audience would understand. It's anachronistic in our post-industrial technocratic culture. The mystical stream within Christianity is somewhat detached from that, which is why the mystics often skirt with, or even are accussed of, heresy. — Wayfarer

I wonder if there should be (if there isn't already) a thread on (dare I say it) alternative accounts of god which are not personal or anthropomorphic? Is your sense that most of these are likely to amount to versions of idealism - cosmic consciousness/eternal mind? Or even Leibniz's ultimate Monad idea of god?

I'm trying to understand your position by posing questions to you that your position entails an answer to... Why does not extend to the age, race, weight and height one 'considers' themselves to be? This exact logic is why 'adult babies' are a thing. I would assume you note the patent mental arrest involved in that notion? — AmadeusD

A familiar argument from trans bigotry talking points. When people straw man trans using exaggeration to argue that - 'next people will want to identify as an air conditioning unit or a maidenhair fern' - that's just bigotry wrestling with social change.

The fact that there are some people who are delusional or make other strange claims is irrelevant to the crux of this issue. Trans depicted as a type of Pandora's box is a popular trope. I heard the same sorts of things said about decriminalising homosexuality (it will only encourage deviancy) and gay marriage (it's not natural). Some people still believe these things.

As I've said, I have no interest arguing against the anti-trans talking points and biological essentialism that are all over the internet and here in this thread. As I said, I'm not a biologist or a social theorist. Happy merely to support the trans community. I arrived at this through years of talking to trans people. And no doubt my view on this will continue evolve.

I accept that there are individuals whose gender identity differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. People who are denied the ability to express their gender suffer greatly and may even suicide. It's not a simplistic case of 'hurt feelings' that would be a trivialising of the matter.

Are there some trans people who are aggressive or mentally unwell? Sure. We would find this amongst almost any group of human beings. So what?

So I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. Your view is likely to have strong support. I have no interest in some interminable debate on this issue.

Nicely put. My issue with contingency is that we don’t know enough about reality to know if all things are contingent. We know a little about of our localised universe.

Most people will agree, including many atheists, that the idea of a universe having a cause does not get us to a god and certainly not a specific deity. And what of idealism in this frame of contingency? Even idealism might recognise the eternity of consciousness with various expressions of it wafting in and out.

:up:

This I can understand. My counter, and you may disagree with me, is that trans people are people, not a specialized group. We all speak English and share language. It is the responsibility of those that want to move beyond their isolated culture to invite us all in and allow our input as well. I appreciate your viewpoints Tom, we'll catch you another time! — Philosophim

:up: No worries. Disagreement is fine. We're not all the same. Thanks for the chat.

?

:up: Nicely put.

I suspect that just as one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. So too one person's rebel may be another person's wanker.

In other words who counts as a rebel may be perspectival. And obviously people can be rebels culturally, politically, morally, aesthetically.

I wonder if it's useful to separate out deliberate dissent from the outlier who just sees the world differently and may not even be setting out to defy anything.

They do. Though. The ambiguous language is what leaves open all of the routes of harm.

Compassion without analysis is bereft of effectiveness. — AmadeusD

This is very grand wording and may sometimes even be true. It doesn't seem useful in the case of my position on trans.

I believe people should be the gender they consider themselves to be. I have no theory of sex or trans and don't need one.

I agree with that definitions can be limiting.

Then I'm sure you understand now why I'm trying to make words more specific and don't have a disagreement with that. — Philosophim

I understand but I choose not to take that approach on this issue.

Clearer and easily understood terminology is better for the community then ambiguous opinionated terminology. — Philosophim

You've made that point several times. Here's my point again, which only applies to this particular matter.

In culture, the matter of trans identity is still finding its way. Trans people themselves have a range of views and approaches. For now my opinion is that we need to remain open to a range of understandings in the space and not police the language and conceptual frameworks too much. That's all.

Consumer culture, entertainment media and marketing have really sold the idea of The Rebel for many decades, from James Dean to rock and roll and even Trump. It's a significant trope in popular culture.

I suspect that people who self-dramatize as rebels are often the kinds of folk who call their fellows 'sheeple' and consider themselves above the ordinary. It is very important to many people to consider themselves as special or different. Perhaps a self-esteem issue?

Rebel/rebellion is an umbrella term and means many different things - from terrorism to a kid at school with a funny haircut. This can go in many directions.

But the more interesting notion of rebellion is found in what it is that people oppose or seek to be non-conformist about and why. This is fluid and more intriguing but in this era of endless subcultures and lifestyles, I'm not really sure how one rebels, except in the traditional sense of defying your own family of origin values or cultural expectations. But if you are rebelling for the sake of it, to project an image and seek to highlight how special you are compared to the dreaded mob, it seems inconsequential and tawdry.

Some friends of mine in their 20's became obsessed with Nietzsche because for them he represented a way to appear strong and have philosophical legitimacy for their general unhappiness and professed opposition to the 'mainstream' and to augment their view that people are sheep. My philosophy tutor found this amusing and said that just about every year or two there were several young males who become Nietzsche acolytes, often speaking and writing in unintentional parodies of his style.

It seems the need to be thought a rebel may be more important than the act of rebellion. Discuss. Or maybe genuine rebels do not think of themselves in these terms and are too busy getting on with it.

. I struggle with unclear English.
— Tom Storm
wahhhhhhh :cry: — Kizzy

Any particular reason for your fatuous rudeness?

(I'm bracketing this response as I don't want to derail the conversation about the OP. The popular image of God as a kind of cosmic director or literal sky-father is deeply entrenched in culture and is typically the target of athiest polemics. — Wayfarer

Thanks for this and nicely put. I am aware of this more sophisticated account of god and probably first encountered this through Tillich.

My point when I said -

-

If god is the creator and sustainer of our reality then it must be that case that before creation, before existence and causality, there was nothing but god. — Tom Storm

- was simply trying to enter the sprit of the argument as generally presented, as understood by Aquinas and others who use the argument from contingency. But perhaps Aquinas changed his view as he became older? The sky father version, which transcends atheist polemics, does remain popular and I would imagine is in the minds of the vast majority of believers. But I get your broader point.

My intuition about Aquinas is that at the end of his career, when he fell into an ecstatic state and declared 'compared with that I have seen, all I have written seems as straw', it was because of direct realisation of that reality. — Wayfarer

I wonder if this Aquinas would have found his Five Ways lacking.

That's a good wrap up of the issue. :up:

The problem with this discussion may be the various understandings about what counts as 'elite'. Does it mean the rich and powerful - the corporations and their privileged servants, or do we mean the educated and professional classes, whose expertise used to matter? The former are less likely to be the latter. In Australia we have often had educated progressives labeled elites by right wing politicians. Mainly because their views required nuance. I think this has neatly distracted people from the real debate; who are the people in charge?

Any thoughts about this distinction?

Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" I think this is a very important question. Why do you think undefined and opinionated words benefit the community? — Philosophim

Oops forgot this point.

You seem to be universalizing my response about one aspect of one issue in order to dramatist a point. I make no such claims about language generally or the community - only what I said about this one matter. And I have already stated that this is my position and others may not like it. It requires no more than this.

See previous.

Ha! Ok

I’m not here for interminable arguments, I’m here to arrive at tentative positions. It seems you now want to gate-keep this site?

Seems important enough for you to have waded in — Philosophim

Yes, but there’s no need to stay in any one thread once a point is made. I wish more would do this but it’s not my call how others behave.

You seem to think that the community needs ambiguous and opinionated language. Why? — Philosophim

I have explained my position. Not sure it needs further clarification. As I said, not everyone will agree and the matter isn’t significant enough to pursue.

This is avoiding the question once again. — Philosophim

From my perspective you’re avoiding my answer.

This didn't answer my question. My question was, "Why is it good to have language that devolves into ambiguous personal opinion, versus language that is clear and unambiguous?" — Philosophim

My answer is an attempt to supply you with a different frame for this matter. What I guess I am saying is that your demand for clear language to me seems like it's trying to fence in some complex ideas that have no convenient solution. I fully understand that this might not satisfy everyone, but that's were I sit with this. Maybe there is a more open ended set of descriptors we can use to broaden the language for trans? Either way it isn't really a critical problem from my perspective.

If you are going to quote someone highlight the words wanted and then click on the 'quote' option which comes up. Much easier to read.

Yes, limitations, he thought he knew that he knew nothing in certain areas, not that he thought he had faith that he knew nothing in certain areas. I'm not an idiot, — Echogem222

:up:

I do not believe I gained awareness of logic and other things through free will, since I don't believe in free will, so now, after being exposed to such things, I feel influenced to believe such things are true because I have no influence swaying me to think differently, and I see no benefit in doing differently. So, I believe I started out my beliefs with zero certainty because I lacked the free will to do differently, and since my faith in anything was originally started out with zero certainty, everything I have faith in is founded on faith of zero certainty, disproving your reasoning. — Echogem222

Sorry too many double negatives and disordered syntax for me to follow. I struggle with unclear English.

You say you are not an idiot - are you certain? Is that faith based?

I'm unclear, what is it you are certain you are uncertain about?

That's a personal anecdote, not a fact. According to Trangend Health — Philosophim

It's a trend I'm seeing in a city of 5 million working in psychosocial services and hospital partnerships where we have around 4% trans clients. But yes, it is my anecdote. My experince tells me this will increase.

Doesn't that sound like opinions? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if we are going to use language that asks us to accept facts, we need words and definitions that are more than personal feelings. Especially when we have decisions such as medical transition, sports participation, and a whole host of laws being made.

I'm going to ask you this then: "Why is it more advantageous to have language that isn't clear and ambiguous?" How does this benefit any community? — Philosophim

No, I do not believe you can categorize people into neat boxes like this. I would not support trans groups who say only one way to be trans either.

As others have posited, what makes us gatekeepers in this matter? Sports and schools and prisons and changing room owners can work though this issue as they need.

To add to this from some personal experience, I have a friend who is transgender. They mistakenly thought that this meant they needed to transition using hormones and surgery. The reality is they liked dressing up in women's clothing, painting their nails, and putting their hair in a pony tail — Philosophim

More trans people I've known these days don't undertaken the operation or use hormones. Certainly not for the first years.

People within the community should want clearly defined words and concepts that they can make good decisions with. — Philosophim

Like every other community there is no one codified approach to all this. I'm not sure it would be realistic to expect this. People have different views and self-images in every community.

I agree that Socrates was wise in many ways, — Echogem222

You can't be 'wise in many ways' without knowledge.

When I studied Socretes at university we were taught that the claim was not to be read as a concrete absolutist proclamation, but a poetic expression about the limitations in Socrates' knowledge.

He obviously knew things or he wouldn't have been able to forensically drill down into people's claims using provocation and irony to make his points, which were obviously predicated on the knowledge of the limitations of other's presuppositions.

So, how then do we believe we know anything? It's through faith that we believe we know things, as faith is belief in something without evidence. We lack evidence to assert that our awareness of anything is truly awareness of anything with 100% certainty. — Echogem222

No. There are things we can have confidence in and things we don't know. Faith can be left to religious claims. There's a continuum from total ignorance to certainty. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't be typing your response on a website based on technology maintained by knowledge and then reading and responding. Sure, we know nothing with absolute certainty, but we don't need certainty.

Try cutting off your hand off with a power saw. I bet you'll form an opinion pretty soon that you are certain there is pain and that you have done something injurious to yourself. To deny this would be decadent and even childish. Thoughts?

Answering your question: It is an instrumental ought regarding which moral principles to advocate and follow in a society given any and all of these goals:
1) Increase the benefits of cooperation within and between societies
2) Maximize harmony with everyone’s moral sense.
3) Define a moral code based on a principle that is not just cross-culturally, but cross-species universal — Mark S

I may be reading you wrongly but here's my take.

To me it seems as if point 1 potentially contains your overarching idea - the need to promote human (or conscious creature) flourishing (found in your word as 'benefits').

There is no intrinsic moral reason to promote cooperation or cross cultural agreement. Who cares?

You first need to establish some foundation for moral concern for sentient beings it seems to me. You then build the system towards this goal by arguing that the best pathway to promote human flourishing is through cooperation.

You might then argue that you can objectively measure cooperation strategies when applied in moral situations.

Otherwise it seems to me your moral concern is for the fidelity of a system. A concern with systemic neatness rather than with flourishing.

But perhaps this is what you mean already and I have missed it.

Does he say 'there could have been a time when nothing existed?' or are you imputing that to him. The argument, as you've provided, and which is a fair paraphrase, doesn't claim that.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not.

He's simply observing that all things 'found in nature' are temporally de-limited, i.e. they have a beginning and an end in time. They don't exist 'by necessity' but only as a matter of contingency. He goes on:

Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now, if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. — Wayfarer

That's interesting. It would be good to get this right since my limited understanding has always been the contingency argument and Third Way presupposes nothing existed until the unmoved mover engaged in creation. If god is the creator and sustainer of our reality then it must be that case that before creation, before existance and causality, there was nothing but god.

The above framework is the best I have been able to do so far. If you or anyone else can improve it, I would be most grateful. — Truth Seeker

I hear you. I have not attempted to identify what I know for certain. I also take the view that absolute certainty is not available. However I hold that I have no alternative but to accept that I operate in a physical world that I share with others. To not do this would likely result in catastrophe. The rest is blundering through. While there is no argument against hard solipsism, I don't think it is worth being concerned about, nor is the idea that there is no 'I' at the foundations of 'my' experince.

"Make America Great Again"

What do you think? How do you interpret Aquinas' argument? I am interested to hear from both critics as well as supporters of Aquinas' Third Way argument. — NotAristotle

Is it not just the argument from contingency? There are threads on this argument here. Something from nothing.

I have never found it convincing (along with his other four ways). But it is one of the prominent classical arguments for theism and David Bentley Hart - a progressive Christian thinker and philosopher, writes to this very well.

We have no way of knowing if there was ever nothing. We are not even able to provide an example (for obvious reasons) of nothing even being the case. Might there not alwasy have been something - even before our particular singularity? How do we know that the universe isn't eternal? (If you look it up, some interpretations of quantum cosmology, particularly those based on theories like loop quantum gravity or certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, propose that the universe has no distinct beginning or end. Instead, time might be cyclical or have no boundary, allowing for an eternal existence.)

Our own localized experince points to contingency, but we do not have all the information. We have no way of investigating this matter except through speculative theory of a highly specialized nature. So no real role for the average person here.

But even if we accept that there was once nothing and now something - this does not get us to a necessary being or god. Certainly not a particular god of a particular contrived human religion. We get causation but to move from this to a being which made a choice to create a universe sounds to me like an anthropomorphism of reality.

The people who accept this argument on Aquinas' terms tend to already believe in god and those who reject it tend to already think of god as fictive and of no explanatory power. For me this points to the general impotence of classical arguments for or against god.

Ok. And do you feel this framework helps? What comes next?

I would guess, because you don't pay attention to them. Perhaps you have a trouble-free life with few difficult challenges. — Vera Mont

As I said, I enjoy dreams. So I do pay attention to them. And I tend to remember some of them. I just have no additional use for them. I can’t imagine a situation I would be in where a dream would provide anything of use. I am not engaged in creative ventures or at a loss for solutions in life, so maybe it’s just down to being boring.