Understanding each from their own perspectives however, can allow you to gain a certain appreciation for that perspective, even if it is drastically different than your own, such that one becomes inspired in the opposite direction. — Vaskane

Is it really possible to understand someone from their perspective and be free of one's own interpretative values and frameworks? How would one go about that?

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of despair, and hope, as philosophical concepts in making sense of the navigation of life possibilities? How may ideas of despair be juggled effectively, to go beyond the deadend of pessimism and thinking? To what extent is nihilism a 'realistic' philosophy or a flawed one? — Jack Cummins

I don't believe nihilism has a necessary connection to despair. With nihilism one can be resolute and cheerful, even if one holds that there's an inherent meaninglessness or lack of objective value in life, existence, and reality. Nihilism would seem to me to be a bulwark against despair in many instances.

I think despair may be fair enough in certain circumstances, where one literally has no hope and no way out.

But generally, if you are feeling despair, you have perhaps bypassed a philosophical understanding of your circumstances and are succumbing to a particular pessimistic interpretation.

Why don't you agree? I believe it's a translation issue. After hearing your perspective on the definition of 'Medical Practice, — YiRu Li

I have not defined medical practice.

The proper justification for a scientific claim is that the methodology used is consistent with the scientific method. I don't know how more clear to say that.

But, if you see Chinese medicine as a cultural or religious practice, like I said, I'll stand back and respect your prayer.

Part of my respect cannot be to suggest that your practices are scientifically valid or that they should be included in a typical doctor's visit, though. — Hanover

Exactly.

Did Westerners experience a similar history? — YiRu Li

Many Westerners don't romanticize their history with mythology like other cultures do - unless they are right-wing. The left seems to focus on critiques and self-loathing.

Technology introduces inequality to society (Iron, Colony, Industrial Revolution) — YiRu Li

No. Inequality is always there. Technology just shows up the fault lines.

Extreme legal systems that end war but cause severe destruction (Communist Party, Cultural Revolution) — YiRu Li

I think you mean authoritarian political systems, not extreme legal systems.

Tao' is Science. Laozi and Zhuangzi were tools for ancient scientists to unravel the mysteries of Science. — YiRu Li

Tao is not a science as I understand it. It might be used to inform science, but it is more like a philosophical or spiritual system.

I have two translations of the Tao Te Ching, but I'm afraid as a modern, secular westerner it just seems like abstract, poetic and circuitous musings of no particular use to me. I am not very interested in metaphorical language and paradoxes.

I have also known several Chinese people over the years who claim that Chinese medicine is unreliable and if they are really sick they will not use it. I would need to see studies on this subject before committing to a view. I have known several people to use Chinese medicine to treat various illnesses. It generally did not work, but in one or two cases it seemed to help. I personally would not use it, but its not a part of my culture. I also would not use naturopathy or faith healing.

I hear you. My own take is that we can say certain actions are 'bad' in a contingent sense - the flourishing of conscious creatures is important to most humans, particularly within intersubjective communities which share values and beliefs. We all tend to agree that killing babies or sexual assault is 'wrong' and this seems largely hard wired into us by experince as a social species (empathy) that seems to be born to nurture and teach. But we also know that killing children and sexual assault are some of the earliest actions which happen in wars and clashes between cultures. Someone is always expendable and not completely human if they are seen as not belonging to the tribe.

One of key challenges with goal setting is the critical question of A - 'achievable'. This generally influences all the other factors. And it's here where people are often bitten in the arse by Time-Bound. They can be unrealistic in what the period they have chosen to achieve a given thing. Many people want to be wealthy and retire at 40. Or be a concert pianist, by the time they are 20, or own a home by the time they are 30. Whatever it might be. People often become slaves to unachievable goals. Most of us shouldn't set our own achievement timeliness based on what a very tiny percentage of remarkable people have done.

Which is why I think the SMART tool recognises that for most goals, a series of factors have to work in tandem for the Time-Bound element to be able to work.

But it is also the case that many people in daily life don't often set goals and don't see the world in those terms. I'm one of these. I just make it up as I go and have done well this way. In my work, however, goal setting and deliverables, KPI's and timelines are a fact of life

That makes total sense. A very interesting frame.

The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that. — baker

It's not all that ironic. Decades ago my father used to say that in a democracy the right have the easiest arguments. Mainly because these positions are often emotional (nationalism, race, freedom, faith, way of life) whereas the left often requires people to understand abstracts (social justice, structural poverty, identity politics, collective responsibility). The left will often struggle to prevail against simplistic answers which lubricate themselves in social Darwinism or 'might is right' and guns. It's hardly surprising that the right have so much traction when they have often been much better and more entertaining in the bar room fights of democracy, while the left, rather than rolling up their sleeves, often seems preoccupied with dissertations on inclusion. Or something like that.

:up: It's fascinating how this discussion has become so protracted and labyrinthine. It's such a small a matter; belief versus knowledge.

It shouldn't be overlooked. It's one standard component of goal setting. Take the SMART goal framework, which is employed by schools, universities, corporations and governments.

SMART goals stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. It is generally thought that we need these 5 elements to effectively achieve a goal. Some versions of SMART have different variations of the acronym, but they basically mean the same.

Yep, as I say, there are some excellent answers and I will continue to use it, but always with some doubts.

As it happened, I asked a similar question two weeks ago.

Me - Is maths the result of human cognitive processes, or is it an external fact in the world?

GPT The question of whether mathematics is a human cognitive process or an external fact of the world is a philosophical and epistemological inquiry that has been debated by scholars for centuries. The two main perspectives on this issue are known as mathematical realism and mathematical anti-realism.

Mathematical Realism:

External Reality: Mathematical realists argue that mathematical entities and truths exist independently of human thought. They believe that mathematical structures and relationships are part of an objective, external reality.

Discovery: According to this view, mathematicians discover mathematical truths rather than inventing them. These truths exist and are waiting to be unveiled through the process of mathematical exploration.

Mathematical Anti-Realism:

Human Construct: Mathematical anti-realists, on the other hand, argue that mathematics is a product of human cognition and is not an inherent aspect of an external reality.
Invention: From this perspective, mathematical concepts are invented by humans to describe and make sense of the world, but they don't have an independent existence apart from human minds.

It's important to note that this debate extends to the nature of abstract objects, such as numbers and mathematical structures. Realists posit that these abstract objects exist, while anti-realists deny their objective existence.

In summary, whether mathematics is considered a human cognitive process or an external fact of the world depends on one's philosophical stance. Both perspectives have their proponents, and the debate continues to be a lively topic in the philosophy of mathematics.

So is self reflection good? Or bad? Or is it always a mix — Benj96

Like most activities, it can be done well or done poorly. The latter can famously result in analysis, paralysis. I think temperamentally some people are more inclined to maroon themselves in narcissistic, directionless soul searching than others. It’s probably also prudent to determine what is self reflection and what is self dramatisation.

I've found ChatGPT to be sometimes excellent but also highly variable and sometimes inaccurate. It attributes quotes to the wrong people, or it makes them up. It gets schools of thought wrong. It sometimes seems to fabricate information about subjects which sound reasonable but does not check out. When you point out such mistakes, it replies, "You're right, I apologize for that." GPT reminds me of a sociopath; superficially charming, but you can sometimes sense the glib emptiness and fakery.

And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. — Wayfarer

It's just what it looks like.

I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy? — Wayfarer

The polls are looking favorable for Trump, so it may well work.

Incidentally, I have met quite a few pro Trump Australians and they are not bogans (rednecks), but generally thoughtful about politics. In their mind civic life and government has become mired in political correctness and is rotten to the core and they really dig the idea of a vulgar mob boss figure like Trump kicking the system about for 4 years. You're right that this inherent cynicism about the status quo is what helps give Trump power. But we live in a cynical age, a fact which a successful candidate can probably harness, so I wonder how useful it is to push back against the zeitgeist. Your Don Quixote avatar may be apropos...

‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’. — Wayfarer

I don't think it will matter. They see the trial as some bullshit political witch-hunt and a significant percentage of voters don't seem to care, so I think full steam ahead Team Trump. I think the game of decency in politics (which was alwasy wafer thin) has evaporated.

To me, relationships are dynamic, mutually conditioning two-way streets. Normal relationships, that is. — baker

I'm not really sure what I am trying to say. I recognize that relationships evolve over time. Or devolve. My original point was that I find people don't really seem to change much over time. In as much as they are always recognizable as variations of themselves. But this is sounding vague and pointless, so I will contemplate the matter some more.

What is truly important is how you live your life. The meaning of an individual life is determined by the quality of that lived life. — George Fisher

You generate a lot more questions with this.

These are not givens. They are expressing assumptions - values and a set of preferences. It may be that it is better to be indifferent.

Whose definition of 'quality' do we use as a basis to make this assessment?

The only hazard to this question is whether it causes you to doubt your belief in the principles that guide your life. — George Fisher

This is surely the job of philosophy - to examine one's flawed ideas and presuppositions, many of which might be unreasonable or harmful. Just because one has principles does not mean they are the right ones. I suspect philosophical inquiry should often be discomforting.

I can hold my own in discussions on theology. However, the older I get though the more I have trouble accepting the various dogmas that religion presents. — George Fisher

Various dogmas or various religions? There are hundreds.

The reason I pursue questions of the meaning of life is that I need something to hang my way of life on. — George Fisher

This sounds like putting the cart before the horse, or is this just the words you have used? Sounds like you have a way of life and are now seeking, perhaps, some ad hoc justification for some value system?

If my life is going to be of value, there has to be meaning in it. I think we are all trying to grab onto meaning so that we can feel confident that we are on the right path. However, it is possible to determine from observation what a proper way of life is. T — George Fisher

I think perhaps the best way is to give up on 'proper' ways of life since this sounds the religion you say you have moved on from.

How do we determine from observation what the proper way of life is?

This can happen even without a God. — George Fisher

The problem with belief in gods is that they do not provide the anchor some think they do. Beliefs in gods do not provide objective ways to live. Since all religions, their sects and individual believers make subjective choices about how they interpret god's will, we can really say that religious meaning is pluralistic and far from certain. Even within the one religion, moral positions vary considerably. It is created like any other meaning, an expression of personal preferences.

Jason Werberloff doesn't drink because he believes he would die through the process of becoming drunk, and a new person born, through the process of becoming sober. I don't take that line, but i find it very interesting. — AmadeusD

As someone who has been drunk more times than I can remember, I have (by that logic) therefore been reborn many thousands of times. All I can say is that I feel no different to my former incarnations - I look the same, I have the same preferences and disposition and memories, pets always seemed to recognise me and no one has noticed an iota of difference. How does one determine when one has actually been reborn? :wink:

All of this reminds me of famous Orwell essay, Politics and the English Language (1946) he writes:

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...'

Even close to 80 years ago this word was seen as devalued currency. It can be used to describe anyone from a Tory Prime Minister to a supermarket manager. Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games.

If it's not 'Plato's Theory of Forms'?
Maybe you resonate with the concept of 'Tao'? — YiRu Li

Neither of those resonate with me.

What you said is this -

If a 'giver' acknowledges that poor people also 'belong to' the category of humans, they can feel empathy or compassion towards them.
Alternatively, they may consider the possibility that one day they themselves could face financial struggles. — YiRu Li

This in Western terms generally expresses 1) a human rights perspective and 2) reciprocal altruism.

Although I have not read all the posts here with great care, it seems that some posters, at least, would find the idea of an eternal existence to be tiring and dreary at best, insufferable at worst. For my part, I can imagine being perfectly happy to "carry on" forever. — expos4ever

I think it's down to temperament, this one. Some people think they find the idea exhilarating, others imagine it will be tedious. Generally this probably reflects how you feel about your own life now as a finite creature. Personally, I think even the idea of living to 100 seems pretty awful. Even with good health and minimal challenges. I generally find the older I am, the more self-contained I become and the less interesting life becomes. I have had many experiences, lots of fun and love but frankly, there's only so much of it I want or need. It starts repeating on you. I suspect an appetite for life is a little like an appetite for food. Some people seem to have no off switch and others are more quickly sated.

I agree.

Does Joshs' post that I've now quoted twice say nothing to you? — baker

I've never noticed this. It makes perfect sense though.

You say, "I've never really felt anyone around me has changed much over time". Or is it that you stick with your first impressions of someone? — baker

How would I know? I just responded to the idea that we notice people chaining. I don't, generally. Of course you might have noticed that I wrote earlier:

I would also add that I never know who a person really is. — Tom Storm

So perhaps 'first impressions' are not all that significant to me either.

Is it 'Plato's Theory of Forms'?

It seems peculiar; essential to the world, yet it takes us a considerable amount of time to comprehend. — YiRu Li

I think it is empathy. I suspect humans, as a social species, are hard wired for empathy which is likely foundational to morality and human rights. It helps us survive as a speciies if we all collaborate and work together for the common good. The advantage of this is often described by philosophers and evolutionary biologists as reciprocal altruism.

Ironically, although some pundits accuse Trump of trying to destroy Democracy, Fascism seems to be surprisingly popular in democratic societies, — Gnomon

That's kind of the point we have been discussing. The resentment within populations which seeks antidemocratic 'strong men' to deliver them from political correctness, technocrats and educated urbanites. That's Rorty's point too.

Ironically, the Will of The People may lead to their own ruin, — Gnomon

Yes, I think this is the problem when people play with fire.

The gains made by minorities and LGBTQ aren't even close to being wiped out.
— RogueAI
Clearly, either you've not been paying attention and/or you're just choking on reactionary grievance. :mask: — 180 Proof

:up:

I'm very much concerned with why people actually do what they do. — Pantagruel

:up: The classic question of the modern era.

From what I have seen (and experienced) the real challenge to reason is less an external than an internal one. We don't discover, embrace, and implement optimal truths because, at some perplexing level, we don't want to. — Pantagruel

I'm not a theorist or a psychologist but I have worked with people (often at their worst: suicidal, overdosing, psychotic, violent) for 3 decades. People are not overly rational creatures. We tend to come at things from emotion and retrofit reasons and justifications. We tend to be reactive - a product of experiences - which we process emotionally to make sense of them. I think we deceive ourselves a lot and hold accounts of ourselves and our world that are visceral and inchoate and unexamined.

I stand with Collingwood's view, that everyone has a philosophy. The fact that it hasn't evolved to a reflective stage is central to his model. — Pantagruel

I've never made up my mind about this. I suspect it doesn't amount to a philosophy as such. More a disposition and a series of values which may coalesce as a kind of worldview. Do people hold presuppositions that inform these worldview? I believe they do to some extent. I also believe people often make choices that contradict these presuppositions because these 'feel better' in the doing.

Thus, the overwhelming majority of human beings only have worldviews (re: fantasy (e.g. mythology, theology, ideology ...) and not philosophies (re: reflection) which they struggle – as you say, Pantagruel, "the real challenge" – to attain as critical/dialectical/existential self-correctives. — 180 Proof

I suspect this is right. Whatever worldview they hold appears to be 'shallow' and tends not to be the product of examination. I guess underpinning these 'mythologies' are some vague presuppositions. Probably notions similar to: "Everything must makes sense." "God will take care of it." "No one can be trusted."

I'm interested in an example of what might count as a philosophy and how this might differ to a worldview.

I think it is true that most of us partake in a type of philosophical thinking, particularly when we encounter challenges - death and suffering - and we may even use some philosophically derived ideas or tools to process these challenges. Most people certainly end up developing beliefs and assumptions about how the world is which may flirt with the key questions of philosophy. But I personally come down on the side that this is generally unsystematic, impressionistic, emotionally driven and often predicated upon unexamined templates provided by superstitions or religions.

It's an interesting question, particularly for the older male.

My routine is boring but effective.

I have never been inside a gym or partaken in any sport (apart from Karate for several years when young). I used to drink a lot of booze and if I had kept it up, I would probably be dead by now. So I quit alcohol in my late 40's. I quit smoking at 39. I'm 57.

I got rid of my car so I walk most places. I live in the middle of my city, so this is easy. I almost never eat cakes, chocolate, candies, desserts or drink sodas (soft drinks). I eat two meals a day (no breakfast, which has always been a preference). I do some stretching exercises each day for my back. I have a couple of prolapsed discs which have needed no intervention for years, thanks to the stretching. I taught myself to stand up from the floor without touching anything. Not easy. I try to avoid processed foods and sugar and I eat a lot of greens and drink mainly water. I weigh the same as I did when I was 20.

Unfortunately, these days when I go to for walks with people my age, I often have to slow down and take a break so they can catch up. Many of my friends seem to be overweight, slow and sweaty. The food choices and health issues can become conspicuous post 50.

That seems to be an excellent frame and good explanation.

Is this suggesting (i'm enquiring, not side-eyeing, to be clear) that we could expect other bad actors to be implicated? Trump being essentially a patsy? — AmadeusD

Like most leaders, Trump can't achieve what he wants without allies, supporters, advisors, confidants, etc. I imagine his capacity to choose wisely here will not be good. The previous administration certainly demonstrated this. But who knows what this could bring next time?

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas... — AmadeusD

The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. These folk generally lack the capacity to see that who they choose as advisors and who they invite into the sphere of influence can be dangerous and destructive. I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper.

but I do not think we are saying anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. — AmadeusD

And this is simply a difference in how we read the events and personalities, I would say.

I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. — AmadeusD

Same as above. However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship. I would think it might help in motivation.

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation. — AmadeusD

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined.

Why don't more Republicans and Republican-leaning people think gun violence is a problem? — BC

Is it because they generally think that gun violence is a way to deal with social problems?

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s? — AmadeusD

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. It just needs the right ingredients. Dealing with dissidents or enemies through imprisonment and murder is an eternal favorite, forget the 1940's. Guantanamo Bay?

I'm not saying this will happen like it currently happens in Russia, but I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric.

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me. — AmadeusD

Cool. Maybe this is what we agree on.

I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular. — AmadeusD

Fair enough. I guess it's just down to how one interprets the phenomenon. I tend to think he's wanting absolute power and to destroy enemies and there may be people crazy enough in key roles to assist him in this project.

Which is why I emphasize a slow burn.... And leaving open that this is simply a sort of opportunism as well run by a mafia boss. Hedge either way.. It's flirting with both.. dabbling in bad faith ways to gain and maintain power if you will. I doubt he studies this. It's more like he has the political instincts for these tactics. — schopenhauer1

Totally agree.

That he thinks that as president he enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. That he supports the unitary executive theory, and intends to implement it. That he demands fealty to himself and not the office. That a significant portion of Congress will not oppose him. That he has engaged in an effective campaign against truth and facts, aided by a mainstream propaganda machine. That he uses the judiciary as his instrument and attacks it as his enemy. That he has in place both plans and henchmen to consolidate power in a way he was not able to the first time around. That he is riding the wave of the rise of autocratic leaders around the world, and that he has cozy upped to them. — Fooloso4

All this sounds ominous enough and it seems to match my understanding of the situation. I would not think it would take a genius to imagine what could come next. Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc.

That's an interesting read of it.

I guess what I see is nascent fascism. The pointers are there, in his words and deeds but he needs another term to consolidate the work - join the dots - so that his nascent fascistic tendencies can come to completion.

However, if you want to define fascism by its use of tactics to wield power, and to discredit democratic principles, it can represent a sort of fascism. I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. I think that's enough to be alarmed. — schopenhauer1

Yes, I think this is probably the key.

It's more mafioso mentality. — schopenhauer1

I agree.

The problem with using the word fascism is the baggage and the fraught argument over definitional fidelity.

I wonder how prevalent pro-Trump sentiment is in the military. If he gets in and seeks to consolidate a dictatorship would they follow? Or would this lead to a potential split... a civil war? Hypothetically, of course.

Interesting . Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism.

We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism. — AmadeusD

I wish I could share this view. I tend to agree with this:

Trump/MAGA is unashamedly fascist. He’s openly boasted that he thinks the constitution should be suspended, the public service purged, and his enemies subjected to prosecution. He has a strong movement if polling data is to be believed. Many are saying that he will win the election, and although I don’t believe that he will, the acceptance of his threats of fascism and the escalation of violent threats against the judiciary and other institutions is alarming in the extreme. — Wayfarer

Out of interest, if an American leader did have fascist inclinations what would you expect to see?

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently?

Lay it out for us. I want to hear your argument.

As I said, abstracts don’t work for me. Maybe you could demonstrate?

It's Amazing you can see these logics from poor people's view. — YiRu Li

What do you mean? Are you saying that it is amazing that we could know that food, housing, medical treatment are critical to people who are poor and have none of these things?