OK, but, as you well know, you are not the only English user of that word. Other people do use it in wider contexts than just the religious, even if you might consider such usage “inaccurate”. — javra

Yes, and as I have said on this site many times, I consider it a bad use of the word. I will always be happy to point this out in my conversations with others.

I don't know. Religious matters can well be quotidian (i.e., commonplace and everyday) in certain populaces, which seems to fully sidestep the distinction you're trying to make. — javra

My point is that 'faith' is best used to describe certain people's justification for gods. To use 'faith' to describe plane flight or crossing the road is a rhetorical tool used by apologists who like to equivocate on language to help them smuggle in their ideas.

I am well aware that people use language differently, which is why I enjoy having my say when there is an opportunity. We're not trying to change the world here, just have conversations and share our views. :wink:

Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to tease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than.... — AmadeusD

Yes, this was my reaction.

Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism.

What do you mean by unethical behaviour? I have rarely seen this, unless you mean capitalism itself, which many do consider to be wage slavery.

Someone claimed philosophy is art. Being a mischievous sort, I suggested this did a disservice to art. Philosophers aren't artists, and when they try to be, they fail, miserably I think. — Ciceronianus

I don't think this is a mischievous view, more of a conventional one. I suspect most people would be in agreement with you that philosophers are not artists.

And I would agree that it's not useful to reclassify philosophers as artists. What I was saying was that there is an artistic sensibility, an artistic creative power behind some philosophical visions/works. And that (perhaps) the act of philosophy can also be considered an artistic one, as per Janus below -

For me the purpose of the arts is the creation of novel ways of seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking. The 'novel' part is where the creative imagination comes into play. — Janus

I think this largely captures it. I think many professions have their artists and visionaries - exponents with prodigious levels of skill, innovation, creativity. You don't have to be an artist to have an artistic imagination or produce works of great literary and artistic significance. As per our earlier discussion about President Grant's memoirs.

I think there are some philosophers who are also superb prose stylists and writers of significant literary merit. Since literature is an art form, I have no hesitation is describing Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, as great literary artists, as well as prominent exponents of philosophy. Whether one agrees with them, or appreciates their works is irrelevant to this matter.

Certainty comes in different degrees of strength—e.g., from being fairly certain to being extremely certain—and so it need not be absolute, by which I here understand “unshakable” and “complete”. — javra

My question came about because of the use of the word 'confidence', which I had laid out in a different context earlier, as an alternative to faith.

In relation to degrees of certainty, I have no particular view on this. Generally I either believe something or I don't. As far as I can recall, I don't often ascribe probabilities or degrees of confidence to anything. I don't think I am absolutely certain about anything.

The only time I use the word faith in conversation is to describe someone's religious views. I try to avoid using this word to describe quotidian matters.

So faith is absolute confidence? But confidence need not be absolute? — TiredThinker

How did you arrive at that? Isn't faith certainty?

the individual ego as arbiter of truth. — Wayfarer

I fail to see how it has ever been anything but this. We may dress up our individual egos in drag with Islam or liberalism or existentialism, but in the end we are emotionally driven creatures who make choices based on what (we think) pleases us and how we as individuals interpret ideas.

Liberalism is incoherent because it claims to be value-neutral, and yet there is no way to distinguish hate speech from assault given value neutrality. — Leontiskos

I've never known any liberals to say this. Can you provide an example?

and leads to anthropomorphic musings

But aren't this inevitable in anything we say?

I don't really see the danger in anthropomorphizing. Human beings are of the world, in the world. Obviously, we make mistakes when we anthropomorphize. Animism is ubiquitous in early cultures and children, "the sky is cloudy because it is sad." But the same faculties that lead to that judgement lead to its rejection. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think anthropomorphising is lazy and onanistic. And worse, it is often wrong. But it's too minor a problem to debate. :wink:

Anyway, as I say, a bit of a flight of ideas on my part. — Wayfarer

I enjoy such flights of ideas.

I don't know why you make the point whether Heidegger was 'theistic', as if I were suggesting that he was, or defending 'theism'. — Wayfarer

No, I guess my point is that people tend to tie nihilism to a lack of belief in gods or transcendental entities (antifoundationalism) and as far as I know Heidegger lacked belief in these. So his answer to nihilism seems not to be located in superphysical transcendence, but rather in a form of self-reflection on being, as you suggest. But this is not my subject.

We have order even in language:
entropy Chaos even from apparent readily and my more perspective seem.

Hence:
I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.
— Nietszche — Wayfarer

Not sure why we arrived at nihilism in this discussion and I never agued that humans don't find order useful - we are meaning making creatures, from our perspective finding order seems a ready and efficient way to make ideas work for us. But does this transcend our cognitive apparatus? I guess as a form of Platonist you would say, 'yes' (eg, maths as found rather rather than invented).

Grammar varies with languages and one culture's grammar looks like chaos to another's. So if grammar is a faith, it's sectarian and contingent, like that in gods. :wink:

Nothing here about Heidegger suggests he was a theist or a Platonist. Being can be radically contingent and still involve interconnection. Plenty of room for atheism in embodied cognition.

Doesn't Heidegger think that our tendency to conceive of gods and Platonic forms is foundational to nihilism? Being seems to be his way out of all of this.

ChatGPT on Heidegger and nihilsim

Metaphysics and Nihilism: Heidegger traced the roots of nihilism to the history of Western metaphysics, particularly to the tradition of ontotheology, which he critiqued for reducing Being to a concept or entity (e.g., God or the highest being). He argued that this metaphysical understanding of Being contributed to the forgetfulness of Being and the emergence of nihilism.

@joshs apologies for the above ChatGPT - this is obviously not my area. Any general thoughts on what Heidegger thought of theism or Platonism?

But once you start deciding that key ways we cognize the world are illusory, it seems hard to know where to stop. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, but I haven’t decided that.

We dont have to assume our cognitions are illusory simply because we recognize the inextricable role of the subject and intersubjective community in the construction of our understanding of nature. — Joshs

Exactly.

Isn't the whole concept of scientific or natural law built on the assumption of there being a natural order — Wayfarer

Not sure about that. There are certainly regularities we are able to ride like surfers riding waves, but ‘natural order’ and laws’ seem grandiose and leads to anthropomorphic musings. Chaos and entropy seem even more readily apparent from my perspective. I don’t see how we can come to any firm conclusions about the nature of reality.

Do you think you can know too much and become jaded about something? — Pantagruel

If you are asking is it possible to know a place well and thereby understand its flaws? Then yes. There's a reason they say absence makes the heart grow fonder. :wink:

I think most western countries are victims of neoliberalism and the collapse of communities and public confidence which this has wrought. Australia is no different. But I would have no advice to anyone wanting to migrate to Australia. All I can really say is it's often unbearably hot and housing is unaffordable. Personally, I'd rather blazing sun than snow.

We are looking seriously at emigrating to England (from Canada). Mainly for the warmer winters, also the community feel of village life. I feel it has a stronger socialist sentiment also. — Pantagruel

Interesting, possibly a romantic view. From an Australian perspective, everyone I know who wants to emigrate, wants to go to Canada - England being regarded as dysfunctional and a broken ruin, thanks to years of Tory and New Labour neo-liberalism and 'free'-market cock sucking.

With respect to the range of reason, surely one of the factors that underpinned traditional philosophy was the conviction that the Cosmos was itself rational in some foundational sense. — Wayfarer

Why do you think we should regard the cosmos as knowable, let alone rational in any sense?

And naturalism presumes no such cosmic reason or 'logos'. This is where the 'all-encompassing relativism' — Wayfarer

I don't know how anyone can determine whether the universe exhibits chaos or order. How does one do this except by using a human made criteria?

I'm intrigued that you are willing to accept the rather infamous 'blind spot in science' - the role of the observer as foundational in constructing reality - yet simultaneously regard the idea that order and reason (which we apprehend because we observe or infer them) transcend our observational constructivism. Which aspect of being an observer allows us to see the world and the order or reason in it objectively?

Just watched Season 2 of Succession. I was largely indifferent to Season 1, so revisited this show late. Two is much better. It's a fairly unpleasant watch (the people in it are all dreadful) and Logan Roy, the gruff paterfamilias, is not especially well written but is very well performed. As presented, for me it's hard to accept Logan as a business genius or a key 20th century innovator in media and news distribution. The fact he is a billionaire, a Murdoch analogue, we just have to accept. To me he seems more like a low-calorie King Lear, but Cox is strong enough to avoid it feeling cartoony.

How many types of faith are there? — TiredThinker

No idea. Outside of religion the word is used metaphorically and IMO wrongly.

I've heard it said that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they have no good reasons to beleive it.

As per Hebrews 11 - "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Religious apologists will often try to bend the definition of faith to include science or daily activities in an attempt to normalize the magical thinking.

The common ones - 'You have faith that the plane you catch will fly safely." "You have faith you can cross the road safely."

I think it's inaccurate to use the word faith in those instances. They are actually reasonable expectations, not faith. They are founded on experience and knowledge. For instance, we know planes fly safely. We know there are trained pilots. We know there are engineers who maintain the equipment on planes. We know there's a demonstrable physics which explains how planes fly. We know that almost all flights take off and land safely. To use faith here is absurd. We can have a reasonable expectation that plane flight is safe. But we don't have access to certainty.

Ditto crossing the road. If we cross with care we can be reasonably confident we can cross without being hit. Faith would be crossing the road wearing a blindfold and marching straight into traffic.

To argue, as some might, that we have faith in science is a specious argument. Science is a model that provides reliable results we can test. It's empirical, so faith is superfluous. I think we can be confident in science as a tool which provides tentative models for understanding the reality we know. Science is not a synonym for certainty.

the presence of creative imagination and technical skill — Janus

:up:

U.S. Grant wrote very well (in his memoirs), but isn't considered an artist. — Ciceronianus

But my argument isn't that any particular figures be considered primarily as artists, or that we should reclassify their oeuvre.

My point is that what they do can also be understood as art. They sometimes exemplify and perhaps even perfect an artistic mode of expression. Grant's memoirs are a literary masterpiece. Along with many other things, Grant turned out to be a significant literary artist.

Christopher Hitchens wrote excellent essays, but wasn't an artist. — Ciceronianus

I never much fancied Hitchens' essays to be honest. (I have most of them on my shelf) I prefer his talks or speeches. But again - the essay is an art form. Why can't we say that a significant journalist's talent is artistic when it is great? No doubt Hitchens wrote some exceptional essays and he made imperishable contributions to the art form. I don't think you have to be an 'artist' to produce works of significant artistic merit.

I think my request for examples of the great philosophical works of imagination akin to art will go unanswered, and with good reason. — Ciceronianus

I think the good reason is the one I already gave.

That said, depending upon one's definition of art, i would think that some of the works of great philosophical imagination (even if you hold they are wrongheaded) count as artistic responses, something like poetry. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you have a slightly implacable, fixed notion of what counts as art. It doesn't have to be a poem, painting or sculpture. And perhaps I am too generous..

I would hold that great literature is art. IMO Camus and Sartre and Nietzsche certainly qualify there. You could add Schopenhauer, who writes exceptional prose. I would imagine there are many contenders. As I said, you don't have to like them as thinkers to see the artistic nature of the works.

I think we can probably also include acts of great creative imagination, which find new ways to describe the world. Might we not also include thinkers like Spinoza or Husserl?

Of course, this can swiftly end up in that quagmire of debates, what counts as art? And Christ knows we don't want to wade around in that one.

:up:

I was agreeing with Pantagruel that trying to learn a discipline required working with its language — Paine

I tend to intuit my way through, almost entirely by feeling and with a fair amount of imitation. Which might help explain why I have never taken an interest in maths, physics or technical matters.

I hope that I am slightly less ignorant than two decades ago, If that is true, it is because I feel and do things differently. — Paine

Not sure I can say the same. I wouldn’t even know how to assess this. I don’t think I feel or do things much differently. I am more competent in a range of domains but I doubt this has come with measurable wisdom.

Interesting information about axioms.

A lot of mathematicians involved feel that these will be true statements about the real sets. But clearly that is a subjective choice based on values about what axioms should do, and there is a cultural aspect to that. — Gary Venter

I don't have enough maths knowledge to drill down into this, but no doubt axioms or presuppositions (and their justifications) lie the core of postmodern investigation.

I'd be interested to know what those may be. But I think it takes more than imagination to create a work of art. — Ciceronianus

Which is why I wrote 'creative imagination.' Personal taste will account for much of this. For instance, I don't find Nietzsche appealing, but I think he was a literary giant. Things which don't resonate with us personally, which we may even resile from, may still be great and inspired works.

Saw the rest of Tár, and it picked up in the second half. It turns out to be something of a gothic/psychological thriller and feels a little like a languorous and formalist Kubrick movie. Not even sure how much of Tár's story really happens and how much is in the character's mind. But it's still boring...

Let's not sully art by claiming philosophers are artists. — Ciceronianus

There's a lot of pretty bad art out there and it kind of sullies itself IMO.

That said, depending upon one's definition of art, i would think that some of the works of great philosophical imagination (even if you hold they are wrongheaded) count as artistic responses, something like poetry.

Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes, I've sometimes said this myself, mainly as a provocation.

I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him". — Agree-to-Disagree

I think inventing a magic man as a way to fill gaps in our knowledge is irresistible.

Don't forget paragraphs. Text slabs are hard to read.

:up:

This is a tough one to answer. As I said earlier, I would probably need a god to show up and make its presence known or visible in a way that I can be sure isn't a hallucination or delusion. And all in a situation where this can be verified by others. This would need to be more than miracles/conjuring tricks: it would need to be big, like moving the planets around, changing the entire surface of the earth... that kind of thing. But there would also need to me a personal component, this god would need to speak directly to me and know things no one could know. All sounds kind of childish, I grant you.

With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else?

What would you need?

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" exists? — 180 Proof

Couldn’t say. But if this magical creature exists, no doubt it would know. I need god to show up in person and settle the matter.

There are some problems - the god of Abraham doesn't exist in as much as even many Jews and Christians recognise the allegorical nature of scripture. Yahweh as presented is likely a fiction (just as well as he behaves like a celestial Trump). So for the theists, who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT?

Do we know if time exists outside of human cognition?

I'm not talking 'ancient' I am thinking more along the lines of embodied cognition studies - thinkers like Evan Thompson and Dan Zahavi - as one avenue of enquiry.

Joseph Rouse and Lee Braver are examples of contemporary philosophers who have no trouble moving back and forth between the two cultures. — Joshs

Indeed. I've found Braver accessible. He is also an excellent communicator in lectures and interviews.

I'm afraid I find philosophy very difficult and time consuming and at my age, with many other priorities, I am unlikely to acquire a useful reading of most thinkers, especially those who formulate more radical approaches. But I am keen to survey some of the directions and themes taken up.

But if I wanted to seek external opinions about if the universe is really "lawful" under the hood, I would seek the opinion of scientists first, physicists in particular, rather than ancient philosophers. I respect that that's not necessarily a popular opinion here — flannel jesus

Not being a philosopher or scientist, I have no commitments either way. But I think the quesion what are the presuppositions which allow science to be understood as reliable is inevitable here. Once you start asking 'why' of scientific inferences, you tend to head into philosophy and more metaphysical areas.

The way you tell it is almost as if our cognitive apparatus is unnatural, or supernatural. — unenlightened

Perhaps that's the way you read it.

You are certainly free to just say that, but some of us like to go on to think about what the reasons might be that we do observe those regularities. I respect if you're not interested in that question — flannel jesus

You left out the key part.

To what extent these regularities are a function of our cognitive apparatus or are in nature itself, I'm not sure we can say. Our physics and science are incomplete and our philosophical understandings of what humans bring to observation and the concomitant construction of what we call reality, are also partial. — Tom Storm

Perhaps Kant can help us? Or phenomenology? What methodology do you think you have access to that can answer the above and determine what direction this enquiry should take? Or do you think straightforward empiricism can resolve this matter?

So in answer to your question, I wouldn't personally frame it as "obeying". Nature isn't obeying some laws defined from outside, rather nature IS those laws. There's not a separation between nature and the laws, our reality at its root is what it is because it is defined by those laws. — flannel jesus

I've never much liked the word 'laws' in this context. Apart from the metaphysical implications, it also implies a law giver or other mysterious entities. And leads to the the use of the word 'obey' which also seems irresistibly anthropomorphic.

Can't we just say that humans observe regularities and patterns in nature? To what extent these regularities are a function of our cognitive apparatus or are in nature itself, I'm not sure we can say. Our physics and science are incomplete and our philosophical understandings of what humans bring to observation and the concomitant construction of what we call reality, are also partial.

An example would be four posts up where I said that I believe that if you practice a certain skill more often you will get better at it sooner, contrary to the example I gave in that post. — HardWorker

As already discussed. That example was not philosophy and you're missing the point of the allegory. It's teaching about patience, not karate, using irony.

I wonder if this is teaching an additional lesson - that when people think something is 'wrong' it may simply be that it doesn't fit with or isn't compatible with their current ability to make sense of the world. Which is a different thing, but often mistaken for the former.

Why don't you talk us through a particular philosopher - say Heidegger or Plato and provide your reasoning for why they were wrong and what the significance of these errors might be?

Just tried to get through Tár, the Cate Blanchett vehicle. Lasted an hour. I found it dull, theatrical and self-aware. Blanchett's mannered performance feels like a recital and the character fails to come alive. A torrent of clever dialogue hemorrhaging from the mouths of characters, especially Cate's, has an enervating effect. It all feels deeply contrived. I hear the second half is better. I might brave it later on.

:up:

Appreciated. Thanks.