No. I'm saying we're a 'growing awareness'. Significance doesn't enter into it. — Patterner

OK. But then why does it matter? What's your demonstration of 'growing'?

So are you saying subject to human judgment humans are significant? :wink:

Was "awareness" a property or quality of the nascent cosmos? If not, how did sentience & consciousness emerge from an explosion of space & time & matter & energy? Is it not reasonable to say that there is a "growing awareness" or that the "cosmos has, eventually become aware of itself", only in the last few millennia of evolution? Is it possible that Awareness evolved, along with Life and Mind, from an insentient & lifeless state of fecund oblivion? — Gnomon

No idea. But all I can say is that any judgments about this are human and therefore limited and subject to a myriad of biases and presuppositions. My own speculative tendencies wouldn't consider human life to be significant enough to be rated as a 'growing awareness'. Perhaps a growing malignancy if we consider pollution and climate change. We know so little about anything that I don't think we even have the capacity to gauge just what is remarkable or important, except by quotidian human standards.

If the material universe popped into existence with a "bang", can we imagine that, like a planted seed, it came pre-set with un-realized Potentials that took eons to mature (actualize) into the complex cosmos we humans are now scanning with our far-seeing technological eye-extensions? — Gnomon

Not my area of expertise or interest, I'm afraid.

Speculation. Sure, maybe, anything is possible I suppose. But we only know what we know. And that is, we are self-aware, and not much else is. — Patterner

Indeed. I have no specific confidence in any metaphysical models. I don't subscribe to philosophical naturalism or accounts of higher awareness. The best we can say is that humans generate opinions and some seem to 'check out' and other's can't be assessed.

I think the idea of a meaningless universe into which humans are an accidental byproduct is very specific to modernity. — Wayfarer

Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But I wouldn't make the claim it is meaningless - how would we know? I would however say that meaning is hard to discern and in the eye of the beholder and given that we are meaning making creatures, it never takes long for humans to create a narrative (generally based on the zeitgeist) to account for our interactions with and place in reality.

His preferred tentative solution is what he calls ‘teleological naturalism’, meaning the theory that the natural order is biased in some way towards the emergence of life and consciousness, as more-than-likely directions or potentials of development. He does not develop this theory but merely indicates that it might at least be along the right lines. — The Universe is Waking Up

I can see how following certain inferences would lead some people into this space. I am more cautious. I can't explain why some people enjoy folk dancing... how can I account for anything to do with intrinsic purpose in the universe?

I think the case can be made that at least esoteric spirituality presents this kind of understanding in symbolic or mythological terms. Why symbolic or mythological? Because it is a very difficult thing to discern! — Wayfarer

I think this is a useful insight.

Is that empathy a learned response to maintain group cohesion? I’m not saying I believe that’s the case, but biologically, is empathy a symptom of that cohesion? — Daniel Duffy

Given we are a social species and tribal apes, our survival and our strength has been collaboration and cooperation, so perhaps we could argue that empathy provides strong evolutionary benefits. Where you sit on this will depend upon your presuppositions. If you believe in transcendent realities (a cosmic consciousness or god surrogate) you might be inclined to believe that empathy is from a divine spark which animates human behavior.

What is the alternative? — Wayfarer

I have no idea. But this doesn't sound like a good argument in favor of something. Isn't this close to an appeal to ignorance?

If we are throwing around metaphysical potentialities, why couldn't the universe be entirely self-aware? Could it not be that it's humans alone who are in the dark? I don't understand how we get to arrive at something so specific as the universe is gaining self-awareness. What exactly does self-awareness consist of when it comes to a universe (I am assuming by universe you mean something more like cosmic consciousness)? Is there an end result - all meaning is assimilated and converges and 'bang' a new stage in consciousness commences?

The question of 'meaning' is an interesting one. My intuition is that meaning is something pertaining to human beings and sense making. How does the notion of meaning apply outside of contingent beings?

I sense a fresh thread on this.

The serious reason is that I believe there is a reason for existence, but that is a religious or philosophical conviction, not a scientific argument. — Wayfarer

Why specifically the formulation of growing self-awareness? Is this Vedanta? Of all the cosmologies and philosophies available, why that particular account or focus?

We naturally try to conform to the crowd, strength in numbers etc. — Daniel Duffy

Or, we have the gift of empathy and find ourselves 'assimilating' in as a sign of respect and love.

Huh? How did you establish that the universe (whatever that is) is some kind of entity and that self-awarenes applies to it?

Descartes refers to Everydayman as philosophically unsophisticated, Hume refers to him as vulgar, Kant just calls him common. — Mww

Guilty as charged. I tend to prefer the appellation ‘unremarkable’.

Yes it is. Thanks. I was wondering about Schop's reading.

That feeds into the meme you will sometimes encounter that conscious sentient beings are the Universe become self-aware. — Wayfarer

Not a criticism or poke in any way, but is there any reason you can posit for why the universe would need to become self-aware? What does 'self-awareness' mean when it comes to the universe? This formulation seems like a human projection: the Delphic injunction, 'know thyself' applied at a cosmic scale.

No prob, but it goes without saying…..any comment on Kant is only an opinion at least, and a best guess at most. I mean, when you come across sentences half a page long, you’re bound to miss the mark sooner or later. — Mww

Nicely put. Which has non-philosophers like me wary of even trying to make sense of him (or any of the significantly complex thinkers, Heidegger, for instance). The chances of developing a useful reading without more formal instruction would seem negligible. And even then...

Are there readings of Kant by academics you consider to be wrong or misconceived? Are there schools of Kant?

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age. — Fooloso4

I met with the head of philosophy at my university back in 1988. I has been somewhat annoyed by the approach taken over the year, which was essentially telling us how to think. He laughed and said, 'Son, you're not here to learn about philosophy, you're here to parrot back to us that which we think is correct. If you want to learn philosophy, leave this course.' Which I promptly did 30 minutes later. I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed.

That's it. I used to love Crunchies too. But some boutique confectioners make their own version of this product and the honeycomb is thicker, heavier and richer than the Cadbury version. In my time, I could easily eat a kilo of the stuff.

The stuff they put in a Violet Crumble candy bar? — Nils Loc

Yep - that's originally the Aussie version, I think. They are a bit denser than the Crunchie bar.

Don't know. I think honeycomb is close enough to candy on its own.

Writing allows one to talk to people without giving them the capacity to reply — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point and has been the case. But often the letters and on line comments, emails, tweets and phone calls are overwhelming, also invitations to defend your thesis in debate on radio or TV, can soon mean contending with a multiplicity of replies, more than the average person would ever encounter.

Sponge candy? A terrible name. We tend to know it Rocky Road or honeycomb toffee. In the days when I ate confectionary I used to love it.

Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

The writing I most enjoy has a poetry and musicality and playfulness that transcends or transforms the material - I am thinking of Nabokov, Edith Wharton, Gore Vidal, George Elliot, Anthony Burgess. It's this melodious playfulness, the unexpected; the 'war against cliché' as Martin Amis described it, that keeps me interested. Plots don't often interest me. I am much more interested in how things are told. The writerly magic is often in the execution, not the narrative for me. Language is also like jewelry or a shiny toy when used with some creativity and vitality.

I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him. — javi2541997

A lot of people are drawn to a rich fantasy life because of their social phobia. Many writers seem to be drawn to the written word because it is a way of being social without needing to be directly with people. I was a writer for some years (newspaper and magazine feature articles, reviews, op eds) and it can be very seductive to drop 'bombs' via prose and not be there for when they go off. In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation.

”Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.”
– The commandment — mentos987

I can see the appeal in this and I find this frame interesting.

Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. — Joshs

I've heard this criticism of the Golden Rule frequently over the years and it makes sense. I have generally interpreted the Golden Rule as to treat other's preferences and values with respect, as we would want our preferences and values treated. In other words, more of a celebration of difference than a 'one size fits all.'

However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations. — Gnomon

But that’s my point. All we have is guesses, no matter who you are.

I mostly agree with your other points.

It seems regimes that do least for their citizens also impose the strictest limitations. — Vera Mont

:up:

I've generally held the view that very often people don't really want what they want. By this I mean it is hard for many people to truly identify they want from life and the circumstances they actually desire, because they are caught up in games of status and competition and socialised into accepting values they don't really benefit from holding and wouldn't hold if given an 'opt out' opportunity.

When one makes money there are expectations and lifestyle clichés about about how money should be spent. I'm fairly sure many people don't enjoy the things they buy much. It's ritual.

I have known several very wealthy people (multi-millionaire types) and many poor people. It's not always easy to see a clear difference in levels of happiness. People's mental health and capacity to connect, enjoy life and find purpose seems to be the primary issue and these don't have much to do with resources. Consider Matthew Perry.

I was talking to a rich guy with around 50 prestige and collectible cars a few years ago. I asked him how often he drove them. He told me he didn't much and that staff were employed to run them and maintain the fleet in a purpose-built storage warehouse. It seemed pretty clear these cars were fairly pointless and just more shit to worry about.

The obvious point to make is that access to education, health and housing (basic security and safety) are important building blocks. If one has a family, these become more urgent. Outside of this, I believe one can be very happy living in a room or two, with few possessions and not much money. Possibly the happiest I've been is living in a room in a share house with around 100 possessions and no debt or obligations. The Epicurean position on wealth and material possessions resonates with me. I tend to avoid owning things where I can and I consider myself an underperforming minimalist.

Now compare this to someone who lives under a bridge, whose circumstances are quite precarious, yet always is able to get just enough to eat or drink, be it by government stipend, food banks, or generosity of those more fortunate. Essentially, the certainty and relative security distinctly absent compared to the situation of the former or "average" individual. What of this man? — Outlander

I've known dozens of men and women in this situation. Mostly they have histories of trauma and mental ill health, so I am not sure where this can be taken.

Yes, it's just a variation on the bodily autonomy argument. It seems a bit of a strange and abstracted formulation to me but I am only looking at the paragraph.

I am in agreement that women should have control over what happens to their bodies and that a foetus should not trump a woman's rights in this respect. We don't allow (without consent) people's bodies to be used for all sorts of things which might save another life (organ or bone marrow donation, etc).

If we disregard abortion and interpret the absurd scenario literally would Henry Fonda (or any other person) be morally obligated to touch someone if touching them was the only way to save their life? — Captain Homicide

Henry Fonda, the reluctant Jesus... Most of us could probably go out and save a life now but don't.


What is the nature of the obligation in moral obligation? How does that implicit ought work?

Nice. I'd be interested to hear more from you on this, perhaps in a different thread. :wink:

Yes, people often do listen to their conscience. Conscience is just how one's moral sensibility expresses itself to ourselves. "Listening to one's conscience" means acting according to our moral sensibility. — hypericin

I think conscience is just self talk. People’s conscience also tells them they should have killed that rapist when they had the chance. They should have kept the money they found, etc. We call self-talk conscience when the talk seems to match conventional behavioural expectations as we might find them in church or a popular sitcom. Many people regret not stealing or lying or beating the shit out of someone, although they might find comfort behind a pretence of having done the ‘right thing.’

But Philosophers, and modernists in general, tend to be temperamentally individualistic, and hold-out for a more personal kind of meaning. In the 19th century, that yearning for a significant role in the world was often expressed poetically & romantically, in terms of intense relationships to God & man. However, the requirement for a unique meaning & purpose of each person's life, seems to be mostly a modern concern, as expressed most famously by the 20th century existentialists, in terms of "self-actualization". — Gnomon

I think many would agree but I wonder how accurate this is and how far it can be pushed. The problem is that any meaning derived from a religion or philosophy is still a subjective or personal account. What we tend to see is personal preferences played out on a theme - it might be Calvinism or Vedanta or Sufi based. But nowhere does anyone convey or hold a meaning that is not contingent and subjective and constructed from personal preferences and personal interpretations. My guess is that an intense relationship between gods and people is more likely to be an expression of self-love than a relationship between the corporeal and the transcendent.

It was just a sincere and honest message to you and Janus that we seem to have totally different views even on what philosophy is. — Corvus

1) This is called feedback.

2) Having different views on 'what philosophy is' is kind of the point of philosophy, or any kind of dialogue.

It may well be the case that you want to encounter only views that you like or are able to appreciate. You would not be alone there.

My engaging in any type of philosophical discussion with yourself, or Janus would be just total waste of everyone's time. So, all the best. — Corvus

Well it hasn't been a waste of my time so this statement is wrong. I find your views interesting. If you do not wish to engage with a member just ignore them. Most members employ this strategy here.

Whether you believe in a gods or not probably comes down to personal taste and aesthetics (not to mention enculturation). We then modify our beliefs with the arguments we encounter and find attractive.

I see no use for or good reasons for gods and no good reasons for some transcendent purpose. None of that stuff resonates for me.

I agree with this:

There are no answers to these questions as they're intended. Just get on with life as best you can. — Ciceronianus

And I agree with this:

Why is life?
Chance.

Where did [life] come from?
The universe.

Life seems to go against the basic law of entropy.
"Life" (i.e. local order) is just entropy's way of increasing entropy (i.e. global disorder).
Are we special?
Compare to what? And what difference does "special" or "not special" make?

Is there a God?
The best evidence compellingly suggests that 'there is a god' only in our just-so stories.

What is God?
An empty name.

Why is God?
It's h. sapiens' oldest placebo and still works for far too many of us. — 180 Proof

Meaning is a human construct and is always calibrated against some value system. In other words, the only meaning available to us is the meaning we make for ourselves. In my experience, people who spend significant time fretting over meaning can often miss the big picture which involves getting on with living, making choices, participating, helping others, being of use.

Joseph Campbell (with whom I am not always in agreement) wrote: "Life is without meaning. You bring the meaning to it. The meaning of life is whatever you ascribe it to be. Being alive is the meaning."

I find this more satisfying than meaning attached to a magic man with no explanatory power and some vague or subjective interpretations of an old book which says a thing.

Thanks for your feedback. I don't care. :wink:

Have you noticed that there's no philosophy of risk because the point of philosophy is the contemplation of the world. It's a passive activity. — L'éléphant

Interesting point. I wonder haven’t you also encountered young men who fancy themselves Nietzsche’s heirs, who talk bravely and with great bluster about taking risks via self-overcoming, but are basically just posturing fanboys sitting at a laptop?

Questioning the reality of the world has been sufficiently done to demonstrate that it is not in any conceivable sense good philosophy — Janus

I agree. Some people do seem to become fixated on these sorts of questions and can't imagine how others are not. I remember my philosophy tutor (I studied it very briefly) saying, 'there's no solution to hard solipsism, so let's move on to some philosophy ' Always made me laugh.

If anyone gets irritated with the topic nowadays, then he hasn't read a single book on philosophy or misunderstood the topic or question. That is how I would see it. — Corvus

I understand but I would say that is a bit harsh. I have heard a number of distinguished philosophers criticize the idea - people like John Searle, Hilary Lawson, Susan Haack, Richard Rorty. I'm not a philosopher, so I am not immersed in the traditions. But it would be fair to say that there are differing schools of thought about what is worth pursuing and the temptation to write off the schools we disagree with as ignorant or 'not genuine' philosophy is probably unhelpful. (I'm not saying that you are doing this.)

It is not ideal, not morally good or even practically possible to force down a value of someone to the others. — Corvus

I agree. But I'm not sure people always consciously do this. They tend to use arguments as surrogates for value systems. A classic example of this is presuppositional apologetics for Islam or Christianity. But this is a digression.

My primary question when faced with arguments about whether the world is real, or if am I in a simulation, or if matter an illusion and idealism is the correct ontology - is what is the significance? Is there anything in my life I would do differently? Almost always the answer is no.

Philosophy is all about arguments. The conclusions are for each individuals. — Corvus

Not for me. Philosophy is about how you orientate your values, then come the arguments. My view is that people often settle on beliefs that appeal aesthetically, then a lot of post hoc rationalization comes into play. I also think the most interesting part is why people are drawn to certain arguments. Arguments don't necessarily speak for themselves, they often speak to the biases of those who hold them. Which is why what convinces X may not convince Y.

So is it more about the argument than a vital part of how you live? I am always interested in why people argue or hold positions.

I’m not making an argument, it is a question for you. By the way I should have put a comma between no and what. It wasn’t meant to be so what!

So what if there is no world? What then?

They didn't come to me, I knew them through projects I worked on in the media here. They were not seeking assistance and I am not sure about their level of self-awareness.

sometimes confused this term with hypocrisy — javi2541997

Yes, I think that's right.

Personally I love contradictions and imperfections - almost a form of wabi-sabi - and delightful for similar reasons to me.

Having a fear or inability in some aspect of your chosen field may be common. I worked with actors some years ago and most were pretty shy and fearful of public speaking. Comedians are often sour and glum. Etc.