Ha! I think that finger means, 'Up yours Death!'

:up:

Interesting. From what I know, psychology does not believe in soul or spirit or anything that is non-physical. — Alkis Piskas

Psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists - are different disciplines, with many varieties of each. Amongst the psychotherapists I've known were also rabbis, priests and minsters of religion, so atheism is not compulsory. Many are interested in spirituality and hold non-specific theistic beliefs. Many consider Jung to have been a mystic and an idealist - his archetypes - analogous with Platonic forms. Bernardo Kastrup writes about this in Decoding Jung's Metaphysics: The Archetypal Semantics of an Experiential Universe. The infamous Jordan B Peterson seems to be some kind of Christian existentialist.

But preparing a patient for death? Well, I can't even imagine how a session with the patient would look or sound like. — Alkis Piskas

some examples or references, esp. about "preparing a patient for death", from the persons included in your list? — Alkis Piskas

There are lots of bad therapists out there, just as there are many bad plumbers and philosophers. Here's one of the better ones, a small taste of the matter with Irvin Yalom talking about the issue of death and how some therapists avoid it and how it might be talked about.

That's ok. It was just obvious quip to make. Apologies.

My experience of discussing philosophy over the years has been an experience largely consisting of debates centred on umbrella terms.
— Judaka
e.g. "Philosophy" ... — 180 Proof

:up: Was going to write the same thing...

that what we need to grasp is that all we know of existence — whether of an immediate object or the Universe at large — is a function of our world-making intelligence, the activity of the sophisticated hominid forebrain which sets us apart from other species. That’s what ‘empirical reality’ consists of. After all, the definition of ‘empirical’ is ‘based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience.’ — Quixodian

That's so elegantly expressed.

So, asking of the Universe ‘How does it exist outside our observation or experience of it?’ is an unanswerable question. But there is no need to posit a ‘mind at large’ to account for it, because there’s nothing to account for. — Quixodian

Got ya. This is so interesting and what a wonderful summary you've provided. Has your view of idealism changed much in the past 2 or 3 years?

when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.' 1 — Quixodian

I feel like I need to smoke a continental jazz cigarette to really savor that one. I'll need some time with that one.

Tom Storm 'what we take to be material objects would have a jerky life, suddenly leaping into being when we look at them' - this illustrates one of the fundamental misconceptions of idealism in my view. — Quixodian

Mine too. I was referring to the commonplace view. Bernado Kasturp has posited that the reason his car remains in the garage after the door is closed and he is sitting with a drink is that Mind at Large allows for object permanence. He seems more Berkeley than Kant.

The whole point of idealist philosophy is to come to understand the constitutive role of the mind in the generation of experience. And you can actually see that awareness growing in modern cultural discourse, with phenomenology being one of the key tributaries of it. But Berkeley, Kant, and Schopenhauer are all significant precursors to it (god bless 'em). — Quixodian

This is an important aspect of the discussion - thanks.

To clarify - are we not talking about two distinct accounts of idealism here? The phenomenological account where we 'co-create' our reality (this would be similar to Kant, perhaps) and the more transcendental variety wherein there are no material things and a cosmic consciousness is the guarantor of reality - Kastrup or Berkeley? Can you say some more on this?

Also do you have a brief take how a Vedanta conception of reality might fit into this schema?

Firstly let me say I've really enjoyed our discussion and find your approach refreshing and positive. We don't always see things the same way, but we have managed this respectfully. Thank you.

Do you have a belief with respect to what does bring happiness? — Moliere

I don't think we can go and find happiness. I think it happens as a by-product of other thing, when you are not looking, or if you are not too jammed full of expectations and shopping lists of must haves. I also think it is possible to be 'happy' and be a bad person.

In making the argument for or against Heidegger we get to see what the values of philosophy are that people hold, though. — Moliere

Agree - this is an important point. All critical judgements in the end are in relation to held values.

Any idea why? — Moliere

Not really. Some clues for me are that marketing and advertising (totalizing approaches which dominate and lubricate our times) are predicated on making people feel deficient. We are groomed to find solutions to problems which frequently don't exist. This sits neatly upon religocultural views which in the West often construct our identity as sinners and unworthy and in need of transformative redemption. We are socialized towards guilt and self-loathing and a search for deliverance, notions which are cradled in a dynamic tension with advertising's driving narrative that 'you' deserve success and prosperity. Etc...

The rejoinder would be -- if your decisions didn't make you happier, then were they really wise or is that a strike against the philosophy? — Moliere

I don't think this is the rejoinder. There's an assumption implicit here that wisdom and truth bring happiness. I don't agree. Note, I am not saying that wisdom brings unhappiness. I would also say in parentheses that wisdom does not necessarily provide answers or solutions. It's often about developing more probative questions. No one gets out of here alive... Wisdom might involve us living with discomfort rather than with reassuring myths.

it might not reach to the levels of proper philosophy - — Moliere

I'm not sure we can make that distinction. While I agree that there may be good and bad philosophy, who is to say what is in scope and what is not? Some people think Heidegger is an empty charlatan who plays with neologisms, some think he is the greatest philosophical thinker of the 20th century.

after you come to realize that you're the one that's attracted to this or that idea, and realize the ideas don't really line up, then you start asking questions like that -- and that's when you're at least starting on the path to philosophy proper, because you're no longer just asking about yourself, but also others. — Moliere

I'm not sure how many people ever arrive at an insight like this.

people were looking for an answer, after all, so they decided to sell them one. — Moliere

I think we live in the cult of personal change and transformation - from social media influencers to Marie Kondo minimalism and the rush to embrace Stoicism. This decade it's Jordan B Peterson, 30 years ago it was Louise Hay. Naturally some people are more sophisticated and read better books, but the idea that we are unhappy, unworthy, not good enough seems to haunt many people's lives.

What else would wisdom be other than the kind of knowledge that leads one to make better decisions? — Moliere

Making better decisions may not make you happier. It might be quite disruptive. Being wise might mean knowing just how tenuous our hold on life is, just how fragile goodness is... Wisdom might bring with it insights into the human condition that lead to a more pessimistic worldview. Schopenhauer was wiser than me - and unhappier.

I'd be surprised to find philosophy resembles psychology, actually. — Moliere

No, that's too strong. I said this about the particular search for transformative wisdom I described. If you look at many popular books on self-help which borrow from philosophy and 'wisdom traditions' you'll often find the authors are psychotherapists or psychologists. Cognitive behavioral therapy borrows from Stoicism. Narrative Therapy draws from postmodern and social constructionist ideas to help clients reframe their life stories, supporting them to take charge of their identities and experiences. Existential psychology assists people to explore meaning, purpose, freedom. Gestalt psychology utilizes the work of phenomenology.

And what's up with this "appealing"? What are the aesthetics of ideas, if any? Or is it mere attachment and accident? — Moliere

Not sure exactly what you are asking here but it's my belief that people are generally drawn to ideas they already agree with. In other words, we don't readily move outside of our wheelhouse - but what we might do is enlarge our repertoire. I also think we can find ideas 'attractive' in an aesthetic sense.

And if philosophy's purpose is to bring people to happiness, then there's no need for the happy person to learn philosophy. But life has a way of bringing pain, and we have a way of making ourselves miserable, so the philosopher offers possible salves for the injured if they come to want them. — Moliere

I find this interesting and I read similar sentiments to this fairly often. But I personally would never associate philosophy with a search for contentment. I can see it as a search for 'truth' or 'wisdom' or an attempt to discover what someone can reasonably say about reality, but i don't associate these with resolving unhappiness or bringing fulfilment. What I sometimes hear in these discussions is a description of a project to cannibalise various bits and pieces of philosophy (generally that which appeal to one's values) and then create some kind of syncretistic self help tool that resembles psychology for the most part.

Where in psychiatry or psychotherapy appear the subjects of "caring for soul" and "preparation for death"? — Alkis Piskas

Lots of psychiatrists and psychotherapists specialise in these subjects (famously Victor Frakl, Irvin D Yalom, Carl Jung, Eugine Gendlin) These subjects are the bread and butter of therapeutic work - it's not all chemical treatment and evil practitioners, no matter what the movies and TV shows say.

Got ya.

I was referring to spiritual practice. Are you saying this is the same as 'intellectual self awareness'?

I gave my definition - activities that promote self-awareness. — T Clark

No I meant I don’t know what it means. Your definition doesn’t resonate with me so much.

You call it projection, I call it empathy. I think it's the source of our ability to care for each other. — T Clark

I was referring to something different. A lack of empathy. Specifically those who arrogantly assume that their truth, their experience has to be everyone else’s. They tend to project their beliefs onto others. Maybe my wording was ambiguous. It’s a pet hate of mine - “I see the world like this, therefore you must too.”

This task would be for my own interest, not necessarily for the interest of others but I’m sure some would take an interest in these ideas. — Dermot Griffin

That makes all the differnce.

I see your point. But I think the idea of “well-meaning or messianic others” is exactly what I think the problem is. — Dermot Griffin

The problem for me is it is not readily apparent how one determines one from the other - except in the most obvious and egregious of examples.

I personally see theism as an aid to living well but I don’t blame people who don’t believe in a Supreme Being. — Dermot Griffin

I get this. I guess theism can bring you to Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Donald Trump, so it's not always clear what theism implies. Most theists think they have the right reasons.

There needs to be a rational inquiry into what constitutes a good life, a life that knows how to navigate suffering and find meaning rather than the fads that we find in the self help community. — Dermot Griffin

You make it sound easy.. :razz:

Yeah, I can see that. Humans are such emotional creatures, so attached to our own experiences and projecting these upon others that I also wonder how it is we can also collaborate so well and care for each other.

Again - I find only profound agreement. :pray:

I am not irritated. I was considering my own personal reasons.
I will keep my wondering to myself, as requested. — Paine

Apologies if I was rude. I thought you were wondering 'what my problem was' and found this a curious reaction.

Do you have a way to relate philosophy to living and what makes you so interested in the subject?

This may be sloppy reasoning, but I tend to think that things like a belief in god and an interest in philosophy are dispositional or akin to sexual attraction - you can't help what you're into.

I think that resonates quite well with me.

I've toyed with involvements in spiritual organizations, but I have never been a committed believer in any of that. I came to it, because I hoped for the kind of transformations via meditation or other exercises that I had experienced via painting, drawing, writing, reading, playing and listening to music, hiking and camping in the wilderness, lovemaking and of course psychedelics and entheogens, only more sustained, but I was ultimately disappointed. — Janus

Sounds like you put in a lot of field work. That's good. I spent much of the 1980's and early 1990's with Theosophists and various groups in my city - mediation, New Age, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti, Buddhist, Gnostic.. I was often struck by other's passion and certainty. I wanted to see if there as more to life than what I felt and saw around me but was never to transcend my own reality.

Wonder all you like. You sound irritated. @Moliere and I were discussing personal reasons for an interest in philosophy or gurus.

Exemption? What do you mean?

For my part I'll say I'm not even a guru, because I'm still uncertain about so much and all I can bring you is uncertainty. Not reasons to do, but reasons to not do. A totally useless philosophy. Or so I hope. :D — Moliere

Beginnings of wisdom? I feel similarly. It's funny - in life I do not reflect much or agonize over decisions. I don't tend to have any burning questions about 'meaning' per say. I'm not really in the market for a guru or philosophical approach to help with anything. I find I am not generally dissatisfied and it seems to me that dissatisfaction is a major springboard into speculative thinking. In my case, I see a separation between philosophy and life. Although I am well aware that every person is an agglomeration of suppositions and values that are derived from philosophy, culture and socialization. Is unpacking this and reassembling our belief systems even possible or useful?

Please, by all means, be provocative. I don't mind. — Moliere

Cool. I guess I am anxious not to be or sound disrespectful or needlessly antagonistic when I post.

Addressing one's fears and anxieties is much of what Epicurus means by the practice of philosophy and the search for wisdom. — Moliere

Ok, yes I can see some of this in Epicurus. From my modest exposure, I've certainly found Epicureanism more congenial than Stoicism.

One of the questions I still ask is about what philosophy proper looks like outside of the academy, and I do not have an answer. — Moliere

A good point. Philosophy is a word used with various meanings. One of the hallmarks of our time is the oversaturation of ideas and possibilities, lifestyles and worldviews available to us, whether it be as a social media influencer and shill in spandex, or a bushy-bearded Thomist contemplative pondering infinities. I often wonder how people choose what they will settle on.

What I would like to eventually do, akin to Jordan Petersons 12 Rules for Life and Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, is create a list of key ideas from various philosophies that promote a real eudaimonic way of living. — Dermot Griffin

Just for yourself or others? Don't you think the world is already awash with well-meaning or messianic others providing us with gratuitous advice on how to live?

Philosophy is an exercise for learning to be aware of how my mind works. It's about self-awareness. For me, that's the definition of a spiritual practice. — T Clark

Interesting. For me philosophy is a study of what others believe and why. What this does seem to be good for is letting you know that whatever your presuppositions, values and beliefs might be, there are likely to be good reasons not to hold them. I don't know what spiritual practice is, except perhaps things done to promote emotional wellbeing.

Let no one be slow to seek wisdom when he is young nor weary in the search of it when he has grown old. For no age is too early or too late for the health of the soul. And to say that the season for studying philosophy has not yet come, or that it is past and gone, is like saying that the season for happiness is not yet or that it is now no more. Therefore, both old and young alike ought to seek wisdom, the former in order that, as age comes over him, he may be young in good things because of the grace of what has been, and the latter in order that, while he is young, he may at the same time be old, because he has no fear of the things which are to come. So we must exercise ourselves in the things which bring happiness, since, if that be present, we have everything, and, if that be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.
— Letter to Menoeceus — Moliere

Not trying to be provocative, but none of that means anything to me. Reads likes some motherhood statements. What exactly is the connection between philosophy proper and its relationship to the 'problem's' of life? Can you provide examples? I understand that philosophy might be a source of some aphorisms or concepts which can be collected and blended into a kind of belief system casserole, but is that philosophy at work or just a kind of shopping for ideas that resonate?

As I understood it via Bernando Kastrup, all of reality emanates from the mind of God and this allows for apparent object permanence and the regularities of nature.

This from Bertrand Russell -

George Berkeley … is important in philosophy through his denial of the existence of matter—a denial which he supported by a number of ingenious arguments. He maintained that material objects only exist through being perceived. To the objection that, in that case, a tree, for instance, would cease to exist if no one was looking at it, he replied that God always perceives everything; if there were no God, what we take to be material objects would have a jerky life, suddenly leaping into being when we look at them; but as it is, owing to God’s perceptions, trees and rocks and stones have an existence as continuous as common sense supposes. This is, in his opinion, a weighty argument for the existence of God.

Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), III, I., Ch. XVI: "Berkeley", p. 647

I like this quote from phenomenologist philosopher Dan Zahavi:

“Ultimately, what we call “reality” is so deeply suffused with mind -and language-dependent structures that it is altogether impossible to make a neat distinction between those parts of our beliefs that reflect the world “in itself” and those parts of our beliefs that simply express “our conceptual contribution.” The very idea that our cognition should be nothing but a re-presentation of something mind-independent consequently has to be abandoned.”

In other words, you don't have to go as far as the idealism of Bishop Berkeley to posit a world created by our perceptions and cognitive apparatus.

Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen? — javi2541997

I think OP's sometimes grab attention because the timing is right and the wording used seems to grab people's imagination. It's not a science, so who knows? It can be fickle territory. Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses.

Will it just end up being Pizzagate with aliens?

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. A definition that 180 has rejected the validity of. The comprehensive definition of racism goes ignores intent and ideology, so there is no need to guess. Within this definition, there is no concept of inaccuracy, we're talking about oppression and social realities, not guessing at the why. My comments to 180 weren't about racism as an ideology, but as a societal reality, keep that in mind. This confusion is the exact reason I made this thread, the term "racism" so easily and consistently causes misunderstandings, quite a mess. — Judaka

Ok - I guess I don't understand this nuance.

It's not "hard"? How do you know whether you got it right or not? If you can't tell when you're right or wrong, how do you know how accurate you are? If you can't tell how accurate you are, how are you in a position to say whether it's easy or hard to do? — Judaka

I think what this highlights is the more general problem of attribution. In life we have to make inferences. In some cases no inference is necessary. I hear the racist ideas and labels in simple conversation. I've watched taxi cabs refuse to pick up Aboriginal people. I've seen restaurants refuse to let Aboriginal people enter (but let white people enter shortly afterwards). None with a booking. I've seen police beat up Aboriginal people, but treat white people with politeness for the same 'misdemeanor' on the same evening (drinking on the street).

But I suspect we need to hear from people with lived experience to appreciate this more fully.

If you see one person being rude to another, with no pattern, and take the racial difference as proof of racism, that's asinine, is it not? — Judaka

I would not say this is ipso facto asinine - it could be that racism is the reason. It might be a hasty inference or a wrong one. It might be a right one. But as I said interpreting (making inferences about) the behaviors of other people is what we do. No one says it is always 100% correct.

For example, if we give a context like police brutality, there are distinct differences in outcomes when documenting by race. This is part of systemic racism and the comprehensive definition of racism. That's because that definition is a literal documentation of disparities in outcomes. — Judaka

I'm not a theorist, but when you live around racism, it's not hard to see it in action if you give it some thought - deliberate and persistent discrimination, intolerance of, and power over non-dominant groups who are often spoken of in negative ways and treated less respectfully, less fully as citizens. You can often see a deliberate structuring of society - use of law, rules and etiquette to set limits upon identity and autonomy of people who do not belong to the dominant race and class structure. But to some extent this is an interpreted process. You have to watch and understand. I think this is what can make racism so insidious.

:up:

Sounds right. Do you accept Kant's account of phenomena/noumena? Or something similar to this?

I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
— javi2541997

I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond. — Fooloso4

I agree. There are fascinating discussions I don't participate in because:

1) I feel I can add nothing further to what has been said already.
2) I don't have a particular view on the subject.
3) The subject is too specialized and/or unfamiliar to me.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. — Leontiskos

I think there's a rather informal, casual approach to the subject here and people probably don't want to get too fancy.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

:up: Yep, I totally see this. And white Australians over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - not to mention white Australians over any number migrant and refugee groups, Greek, Italian, Middle Eastern, African...

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist...

I can see merit in that.

I think you know the difference between what is real and what is fake, or illusion, or counterfeit, and so on, so why do you need a definition? — Banno

Good question.

:up:

Is our most vibrant picture of God nonetheless a tragical portrait, elevated in stature but run through with fatal flaws? — ucarr

That's a nice description and one might argue this. A reading of the Old Testament can present us with a god who screws up time and again.

The issue with any version of God is that it will always be in relation to a particular narrative account. Gods are always part of a story which humans tell each other and interpret.

human nature, as I know it, will tear down upon itself any sanctuary of perfection and order before long whereas, faced with a sometimes reveling, sometimes marauding Supremacy, humanity, buoyed upon the desperation of a much-assailed faith, keeps re-visiting the testamental narrative in defiance of rational hope. — ucarr

Perhaps, but then some families are like this too.

Does it follow from God's omnibenevolence that God honors Lucifer's free will no less than he honors yours and mine? — ucarr

That's an intriguing idea. I often suspected God of festering, 'How do I vanquish this horned motherfucker?!" Another way of seeing Satan is as God's loyal opposition - created by God specifically to provide a foundational focus for the freewill he has given humans. In other words, Satan is on God's payroll as inspiration and in charge of punishment.

Also, Lucifer and Satan are possibly not the same being if you look at various exegetical accounts.

The endless variations of this story and the human imagination which propels it are like origin stories from the Marvel universe, only less fisticuffs.

Knowing God exists means knowing God's superlative attributes exist and are therefore to be shared out to the masses via believers. — ucarr

This is not a given. If the God as described in the Bible exists, than this is a violent mob boss deity who runs a celestial protection racket. Claiming god as omnibenevolent is surely just part of a definitional game, which can't be demonstrated as corresponding to a reality. Perhaps we can employ the gospel's, 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' If god has created a world crammed with chaos and suffering and allows children to die of cancer and starvation in their multitudes, then presumably, he is a piece of shit.