Notice that DT are the same letters as the DT's or delirium tremens? Which, like Trump is a medical emergency causing:-

Severe agitation and restlessness
Confusion and disorientation
Hallucinations (often visual)
Tremors and shaking
Rapid heartbeat (tachycardia)
High blood pressure
Sweating
Seizures
Fever
Delusions
Profound anxiety
Sleep disturbances
Loss of appetite
Nausea and vomiting

I am interested in how people can be better educated, in how nefarious humans manipulate others to focus on fighting and slaughtering each other, whilst in the background, they hoard all the cream and riches and resources that the Earth has, and they intend to keep full control over such, for them and their descendants exclusively, (until Jesus returns or Allah ends this experiment, etc) until the end of time.

I have my own ideas (none of which are original .... probably), but I am also very interested in the thoughts of others on this. I hope this clarifies my intentions with this thread a bit more than my described opening thoughts do. — universeness

Got ya. I have nothing. Good luck.

As I suggested, I think that the examples offered so far, fall way, way short of the human uses of horror and terror and how such is being employed today (as it was in the past) between groups like Hamas and the Israelis or Putin/Ukraine and the western nations, or China currently in Honk Kong and the South China sea, or in North Korea or perhaps even in the UK, in far more subtle ways, than many of us understand — universeness

I'm not sure I understand the question. But perhaps the clarity of this matter rests upon the underlying assumptions one holds.

Humans are clever animals, so anything we do that animals also do is given a greater scale and sophistication by us. Humans use intimidation and violence as a tool to achieve ends. Even the democratic state, with many of its laws, police and punishments is just highly refined, even abstracted variation. So? Why do humans do this? Social control and territory acquisition.

How do we deal with this if institutions (e.g., the U.N.) and strategies (diplomacy) fail? No idea. If cultures are locked into internecine squabbles about hearts and minds and land grabs, then it's war. And then we come to questions of style - what kinds of horror and terror are judged to be commensurate with the goals?

Thanks for clarifying. It's an interesting subject but I doubt philosophy or science will solve it any time soon. I have no expertise in the subject so I don't speculate much, except that we have never documented any instances of consciousness exisiting outside of brains. That does seem to be a clue. Of course idealism solves or dissolves our dualistic dilemmas, I just don't find the model convincing so far.

So, if what you suggest here is true, then are the news reports we receive about such global events, our own governments attempt to control it's population by exemplifying the horrors happening elsewhere, so that we remained terrified that that might happen to us, — universeness

I think that's sometimes a consequence, sure. What I meant is that terrorist acts and retribution are a form of showbiz - a vulgar calling card of the protagonists who can rely upon world media to build or amplify their notoriety and power. Those who seek to gain their revenge can also demonstrate their power and credentials. I make no comment on accuracy of media reports and I don't think there's a conspiracy. I think the problem is that parties feel they need to put on bigger and better bangs and flashes and produce higher bodycounts to demonstrate their commitment to a cause, along with their might.

How important do you think it is for all of us to understand what's really going on, better than we do at present? Historically, we seem to keep making the same mistakes again and again Tom — universeness

I don't see how we can gain a pure understanding of what is going on. It will always be an interpretation subject to a set of values. In many instances the why may not matter as this becomes a justification and we shouldn't be able to justify the mass murder of innocents.

What do you mean by 'the shadow side of human competence? Is this a reference to the range of individual levels of human ignorance displayed or demonstrated, regarding what is really going on or is this a reference to those humans who hold nefarious intent behind their actions? — universeness

They were two small points and you may not agree. The flip side of our capacity to care and nurture is our capacity to harm and destroy. I am never surprised by our willingness to do the latter. I think cruelty is a reality of human nature. A primitive impulse to destroy lies just below the surface. Throw in tribalism and age old blood feuds and it no longer seems to matter who gets hurt.

To learn the use of the surgical scalpel, rather than the indiscriminate blood axe, war hammer or missile strike. — universeness

I agree this would be desirable.

It was just fine without human beings during the 13.8 billion years prior to a quarter million years ago so I suspect – consistent with the mediocrity principle – that the universe would be neither worse nor better off without us. — 180 Proof

I tend to agree. Humans may frequently strike each other as marvellous creatures, but I don't think we can say that our presence on earth has made the place any better.

:yikes:

How many times could one endure one's existence, regardless of how much or little one has suffered and how high or low one's joys? — 180 Proof

Fair point. My life has largely been free of trouble but I certainly wouldn't want to relive any of it. I choose extinction. :wink:

Is my shock what they wanted? Do we need to all react differently to thwart the nefarious bastards on both sides of these horror campaigns. How do we educate the masses to defeat these tactics? — universeness

Isn't it also showbiz? A snuff movie? Explosions, screams, fire, ruins, dramatic footage of people suffering in the aftermath - this guarantees notoriety, being talked about, filmed, covered by journalists, discussed by taxi drivers, parsed on philosophy fora...

Have there been any studies on how/why humans developed this relationship with vengeance than no other species seem to have, to anywhere near the same extent as us? — universeness

Most of our foundational stories, our religions and myths showcase acts of vengeance, so perhaps we are primed by generations of such storytelling. But I don't find this behavior surprising given our capacity for creativity, story telling, design and forethought - isn't it just the shadow side of human competence? We demonstrate our love of others by offering them care and resources. We demonstrate our hatred of others by wanting to harm them.

Idealism is compatible with option 4. "Not all" does not exclude "none". — petrichor

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to do. I was just curious why you settled on those options.

No idea, really. None of those. Any reason why you left out idealism? Or Integrated Information Theory (IIT)? And I guess you could also add emergence theory.

I like the idea of a triangle with four sides - that seems a match for what is happening.

If someone says to you - Why is there something rather than nothing? - what would be your usual response?

That sounds right. In this way we have any number of books being seen as helpful, inspired or revelatory, from Mein Kampf to You Can Heal Your Life. One person's 'lying' book is another person's indispensable truth.

A book may say any number of things I initially find wonderful and revelatory, but it will have no effect on my life until I put this knowledge to the test in terms of determining how well it allows to me to anticipate events over time. Only that will determine their relative truth or falsity for me. — Joshs

Is there anything more you can say about this process? What do you think is the connection between one person making a book 'work' and another not? Is it a mixture of factors like socialisation, values and personality? Are our anticipatory selves (for want of a better term) built and rebuilt by our ongoing relationship to the world and how we are socialised?

I think that sounds right, but you have more expertise in such matters than I do. Would you define it this way?

Something is going on here, to do with nothingness. The folk posting here have something in mind, when they talk about nothingness. — Banno

They do. But isn't that the problem? Can we talk about nothingness, other than to say there is a concept we imagine wherein there is a total absence of something? We talk about something with great ease and then posit that the opposite to something must exist.

Got ya. Thanks for the clarification. :up:

For example, food is good for man, and this truth is not man-made. But I realize you disagree with this and that it will lead us off on a tangent, which is why I bracketed it. — Leontiskos

Got ya... Yep, I don't think this can be demonstrated. But let's explore this in a more appropriate place some other time. Thanks for the chat. :up:

If you want to take issue with what I said, then present a rational, logical or empirical argument that purports to show that there must be, or that we should believe there are, higher things, and which can be determined to be such. — Janus

Quite the question. I think the primary reasoning or justification available would be some kind of appeal to tradition - Platonism, the perennial philosophy and what not.

Yes, but this is an argument about what is good, and presupposes a desire for the good in both parties. You are saying to the divine command theorist, "You see divine commands as good, but they are not truly good. This other thing is truly good, and it is this that you ought to seek instead." — Leontiskos

I can see this. But I'd not be saying that. I'd be asking questions: "Do you accept something as good because you think good wants it? Then how do you know God wants it? How do you demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of God's will? Did you consider your thinking about this or did you merely accept what you were told by a priest or family member?

The questions are really endless and this last perspective seems close to nihilism to me. There is a total disengagement between making a decision to do good as opposed to following some instruction which you don't even know to be true. But yes, I get that there is still rudimentary reasoning happening, even if it is fallacious and, perhaps, complacent.

My quip about god being evil need not enter into this and in most discussions would not. It's enough to be getting on with trying to demonstrate how anyone can know what god/s wants. Whether good nature is goodness itself is for a separate line enquiry.

It leads to the idea that, ultimately, there is no reason to do anything. There are only hypothetical imperatives. We could argue about whether that results in nihilism per se, but in any case it seems to come very close. — Leontiskos

I can kind of see that, but I would be one to argue about it. I guess it all depends upon how we understand nihilism and whether it comes in various degrees.

Once that is understood then it becomes clear why separating reason from the good entails that there is no ultimate reason to do anything at all. "The good" is the psychological motive force for human beings, if you will (but not only that). — Leontiskos

I guess in your "not only that" space you might come at this from a more platonic perspective? For me The Good is an artifact of human experience and reasoning and can only be contingent, even if there are large intersubjective communities of agreement. The experience of being human doesn't differ all that much in terms of most people wanting to flourish and avoid suffering.

Divine command theory has a conception of the good. It conceives of the good as that which is divinely commanded. — Leontiskos

I guess it does. But from my perspective this isn't actively engaged with the good as such and is merely following orders. But then my take on Yahweh/Allah is that he is an evil monster. So while a presuppositionalist Christian or Muslim theologian might hold that goodness emanates directly from the nature of god (thereby perhaps avoiding the Euthyphro dilemma), I would say this god, by Biblical accounts is a genocidal anathema.

But perhaps I am unfairly cobbling together philosophical points with specific literalist interpretations, so there's that...

In more general terms, how severing reason from the good is nihilism can be seen in the ideal of objectivity and the sequestering of "value judgments". Political philosophy, for example, is shunned in favor of political science.
— Fooloso4

I think this is more or less correct. :up: — Leontiskos

Can you say some more about why?

Nihilism is the concept of reason separated from the concept of the good.

Interesting. I can see how this might work as a definition of nihilism. But by this account then quite a range of people who believe in transcendent entities, such as gods, might qualify as nihilists - Islamic State faithful, some Christian apologists, for instance, who do not have any conception of the good but only a divine command theory which holds death to apostates, applied misogyny, homophobia and sundry ani-human beliefs.

I always understood nihilism as a lack of belief in ultimate purpose or some ultimate transcendent reality. I certainly don't beleive in these and do not see how an idea of 'the good' can be more than a human construction which changes over time, however useful and beneficial such a construction might be.

Yes, that’s how I would think about it. However, I would also say I prefer the thoughtful theological thinking of David Bentley Hart over the shallow proselytism of, say, evangelist Creflo Dollar. I can tell shyster from a thinker even if I might consider both are wrong.

I think everyone believes that there are hierarchies of competence, but I am sure that not everyone is elitist. — Leontiskos

I think this is a good point. I wonder where the line is.

It's this:

“I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense. I prefer the good to the bad, the articulate to the mumbling, the aesthetically developed to the merely primitive, and full to partial consciousness.”
Robert Hughes

I tend to agree but the implications of this are one can become a snob and eschew certain people and popular culture on the basis that they are not worth our time. Hasty judgements can be made. I think this counts as elitist, but isn't as bad as some expressions of it.

When I was young, I might have responded to your Michael Jordan comment with, "I don't really know what you're talking about, I find sport trivial and boring." I would not say such a thing today, but it would be true to say I have never really watched any sport, except for a few minutes by accident on TV's in waiting rooms. :wink:

I’m not an expert on elitism and I would imagine there are various dimensions to it. I use the word the way critic Robert Hughes used it. I’ll fish out a quote later. And yes your example would qualify - people can be willing participants in hierarchy without benefiting from it. How do you use the word?

I just mean there is a hierarchy of competence. I think there is a broad intersubjective community which shares such a view.

Just saying Dan Brown is not as good a writer as George Elliot, say, may be seen by many as elitism, rightly or wrongly. And by others as a conservative remnant of a time when tradition mattered and a cannon was proposed.

I didn't take your comment pejoratively - but at the same time, there's a cultural dynamic at work in this topic. This goes back to one essential plank of liberal democracy, namely, that everyone is equal. — Wayfarer

I don't disagree. I am an elitist when it comes to art, literature and movies. I consider that there are better and worse texts - this is, of course, subject to some criterion of value and can get nebulous.

I do think everyone is equal in terms of rights and status as human beings. Not everyone is equal in terms of talent or ability. I don't have an issue with that. But good points like these can be made to do bad jobs.

Secular culture tends to level everyone in that sense - it questions any form of charismatic authority or any sense of there being a higher truth. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure what secular culture consists of. From what I can see there are a range of cultures and sub cultures which revolve around secularist notions and they don't always share presuppositions.

I do think when people reach for the term 'higher truth' we should question this as it can be used in a range of ways. And it can be used to shut down discussions. As in, 'There are higher truths you don't understand, Son.' All this aside, I particularly value your insights on these matters, even if we don't share some presuppositions.

It goes deeper than that. Imagine the college-educated, yet mainly sports-watching, hard-drinking, workaday man whose very existence is subsumed by the debates and beliefs of the intellectual debates/pursuits/insights over the last 2,500 years or so, but does not care about any of it. That is to say, these insights are ignored by reflex or default. Something has failed. — schopenhauer1

I don't disagree entirely but why do you say failed? Is your assumption that the average person like this should be interested in these matters? Do you draw a direct line from being able to think about 2500 years of intellectual debate and being a 'better citizen' or some analogue of that?

:up:

Wayfarer made a very obvious and rational comment. Do you actually disagree with it? If not, why are you objecting? — Leontiskos

So clearly you are missing the point. I did not disagree (or agree) with the observation. I pointed out that this is exactly the kind of comment elitists make when they want to marginalise alternative views. As in: "Your criticism is not valid because you are not sensitive enough or have not read the right works to understand." A secular variation of it might be, "People shouldn't be able to vote at elections unless they have the right qualifications and educational standard." You'll note, I specifically said that I didn't think it was Wayfarer's intention to be patronising, but this kind of argument can easily been understood that way.

Now is the argument rational? Sure. But a whole lot of bigotry and elitism can be rational too so that's hardly relevant.

You consider religion as an enemy of human development. Christianity has managed to 'zombify' the people with the aim of not allowing them to think by themselves, and this caused slow progress in some parts of the world. — javi2541997

No. I consider some expressions of religion harmful. Not all. But yes, in relation to your later point I think this has often been true.

I cannot conceive that an upright and clever person like you has no interest in life and existence — javi2541997

Nihilism has various expressions, for me it simply means I don't think there is a purpose to life or any meaning other than the meaning we manufacture ourselves. Meaning being human perspective. So there's plenty of opportunity to create meaning, both personal and in collaboration with others. Which is what people have done for ever, although some of us like to believe that meaning is ultimately derived from a transcendent source. But this belongs in a nihilism thread.

It is true that some religious groups use the rhetoric of the Bible - or Quran - viciously. But this is far away from making people lose vitality. — javi2541997

No, I'm not making my point clear. Sorry. Religion as opiate of the masses, a soperific which has prevented people from taking revolutionary action for social justice and equality because life on earth is only a preparation for the next life. Religions often venerate suffering and passivity as god's will. This is certainly how much Christianity has operated, zombifying radical intent. But the caste sytem in India pulls similar stunts in relation to poverty. (Note - Yes, I am well aware that there is also religious activism for social justice.) But remember this was response to your line:

Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? — javi2541997

But we should move on from this since the act of bashing religion, while understandable, is dull.

Where does 'luck' come from? — javi2541997

Just a word we use to describe the dumb shit which happens. As a nihilist, I don't see reason to accept any transcendent meaning. These are bedtime stories, sometimes complicated and deep stories, which aim to provide succour and meaning.

I agree. But as much as some people who embrace themselves in political doctrines and sectarianism. — javi2541997

Sure, but that's an equivocation - it doesn't change the fact that the religious are often experts at it and I was answering your specific question about religions depleting people.

Although existentialism has been becoming less relevant in philosophy, it has key elements to understand our relationship and cause with life since we were born. — javi2541997

Existentialism seems to come in and out of vogue, like the hula hoop. I don't make a good existentialist, although I flirted badly with it when I was young. I tend to hold that life is a lottery. Luck determines most things, but you can roll with the punches, adapt and make opportunities even in adversity. But giving up is always a possibility... :wink:

:wink:

That seems like a rather cynical take. Are you of the opinion, then, that everyone is equally virtuous? Equally reasonable? Equally knowledgeable? — Leontiskos

I think this rather misses the point.

I am outlining how certain elitists can employ an elusive criteria of value to exclude certain folk from being seen as fully human or fully sentient. Are you of the view that this doesn't happen in religion and spirituality? My experience has demonstrated this is fairly common.

But as has said this is derailing the thread.

It's incompatible with democratic liberalism. That's why most of the exponents of the various forms of the perennial philosophy are hostile to modernism — Wayfarer

As a democratic liberal and (for the most part) a modernist I guess I am cursed to forever find fault.

When I was involved with the Theosophical community one of the things you heard most often was how this or that doctrine or set of teachings was 'only for those who have done the right initiation, and are truly sensitive' which was generally a way of dealing with any differing point of view. Everyone who did not agree in full was deemed 'less developed'.

Curiously, those who understood and were sensitive were also subject to identical substance abuse issues, anxieties, jealousies and status seeking as those who weren't, so it was hard to see what substantive difference any of these word games made to a life. It seemed more like it involved collecting a set of putative virtues and participating chiefly in a self-congradulatory abstract dialogue with those who shared the perspective. This could be true also for postmodernists, Pentecostal Christians.. or fans of Taylor Swift.

The question is how can we tell if someone has the right virtues or attributes?

An insight that requires virtue and reason to obtain; not commonly found amongst the uneducated or untrained; the aim of the philosophic life. — Wayfarer

Not your intention, but that does sound like elitist, status seeking dogma.

The issue is, I am seeing this kind of argument tactic used more and more in discussions around large existential issues, and it feels deserving of a more specific definition. — Mihai

I generally hear this argument called an appeal to cynicism.

The opposite is also used. People often argue something along the lines of, 'Humans have always survived and thrived, so climate change/war/whatever threat won't impact on our survival'. In other words, don't do anything, it will be alright.

But the issue to me with your example isn't whether their approach pivots on cynicism or pessimism; it's an inferential fallacy, or more specifically, a hasty generalization fallacy. The person is making an inference that because P often seems to the case, P is always the case. Which is clearly untrue.

I would be interested to see an example of this appeal to cynicism in action to understand how it is being applied. Some instances are more convincing than others.

Do you really think that religion or spirituality deprive people from energy? — javi2541997

Wel, religion has been called the opiate of the masses by no less than Marx - meaning that it may effectively stunt people's critical faculties and prevent them from trying to improve the current world (on the basis that the next one will be magnificent). Many people who embrace religions do see the world through a very limited and doctrinaire lens which is its own form of zombification.

Whether you like it or not, there will always be the necessity to believe in something. — javi2541997

Not sure that really means very much. What is 'something'? The issue with a belief is whether is is useful or true or good. Not just any belief will do. :wink:

:up: