I'm sure they nevertheless have at least a subliminal influence in our worldview and self-understanding. — Wayfarer

Of course, it goes without saying that a human is a kind of mess of preconceptions and enculturations.

I will add that the principle difference between the neo-Kantian Cassirer, and standard view of physicalism, is that the latter sees mind and being as the emergent products of physical processes which are understood to be inherently non-intentional and non-teleological. The former recognises the role of mind in the constitution of the world which is the context within which all judgements about what constitutes 'the physical' are made. — Wayfarer

I have no issues with this account. I don't know where I sit precisely. I do believe we 'construct' the world, our cognitive apparatus has foibles and limitations and there is embodied cognition - along the lines of phenomenology. I'm not sure any of this matters to how I go about my daily business.

I think it's worth remembering that for the greatest part of human history (including here prehistory) people lived in relatively small communities, and now many of us live in vast metropolises; perhaps we haven't adapted fully to that condition yet. — Janus

Indeed. I came to this conclusion myself. Pluralism and balancing competing values and beliefs within a culture is a massive challenge - especially where those beliefs are irreconcilable. I wonder what the conditions need to be for cooperation to be possible? Does it require a sufficiently generous understanding of the word and shared values, including a commitment to reason. Does cooperation rely on cooperation and does this make is circular? :razz:

The question then devolves to 'ought we want to live happy lives" and that question just seems silly since happiness is universally preferred over unhappiness. — Janus

That's right and ultimately we need to settle on an axiom like this as a starting point.

This is not very imaginative but for the most part - it's better to be alive than dead, it's better to be well than sick, its better to flourish than suffer. How do we build principles that assist in achieving this for all? Even the notion of 'for all' is an axiom, since we know of people who think that the circle of moral concern should only encompass the types of peeps they recognize as citizens.

One thing that seems to me to be absurd, and perhaps even unethical, is to live one's life with the expectation and aim of gaining merit for an existence after death; I think that idea has the potential of radically devaluing this life. — Janus

Couldn't agree more.

Whatever works, and we are all different, right? — Janus

I think so.

For one thing, it passes the buck on the question of why we desire to cooperate with each other. It’s because “Evolution told us to”. — Joshs

It could well be seen to have a scientistic flavor.

does it seem to you that it is just repackaging traditional moralism in new garb, as if there is such a thing as “ universal morality” , or that claiming that evolution wires us to be cooperative doesn’t just push back the question posed by social norms into the lap of biology. — Joshs

I can see this interpretation. Yes, it's the ye olde search for foundational morality .

What's your essential perspective on moral 'foundations'?

The most reasonable foundation for morality is what morality is and always has been - the rules we live by to maintain cooperative societies.

Moral rules such as the “Do to others as you would have them do to you”, and “Do not lie, steal, or kill” make more sense once you understand them as parts of cooperation strategies – they all advocate initiating indirect reciprocity.

For example, “Do not lie” as a cultural moral norm is the reciprocity equivalent of “Don’t steal from anyone else and everyone else will commit to not stealing from you and society will punish anyone who does steal from you.”

Also, as parts of cooperation strategies, all of the above moral norms are understood as heuristics (usually reliable but fallible rules of thumb) not moral absolutes. When the Golden Rule fails, such as when “tastes differ”, and following it would cause cooperation problems rather than solve them, you have good moral reasons for not following the Golden Rule. The same is true for “Do not kill”. If following it causes cooperation problems, as when dealing with criminals and in time of war, there is no moral reason it should be followed. — Mark S

Thanks Mark, yes, this much makes sense and is clear to me.

Does this lead us into a space that there is nothing intrinsically good or bad and that almost anything might be allowable under the right circumstances?

Moral norms in general are oughts (what we feel we have an imperative obligation to do). But, as I have explained, that feeling of imperative oughts is an illusion encoded in our moral sense by our evolutionary history because it increased cooperation. — Mark S

Do you think this is a controversial statement? I see where you are coming from but many people who do not share your values could find this problematic.

Not wanting to harm children (for instance) is no doubt hard wired in us as one of these 'evolutionary illusions'. But does this suggest that harming children might be permissible in certain contexts?

Not a question that can have a back-of-an-envelope answer.
— Banno

For non-philosophers, Banno’s muddled answer is not remotely competitive. Some might describe it as dead useless. — Mark S

I've found @Banno helpful on many subjects. He certainly reminds me that philosophy is not easy and to be wary of easy answers. He alerted me to virtue ethics when I first arrive here. Philosophy seems to be about continually refining the questions we are asking, which may matter as much as, if not more so, than the putative answers.

However, that does not prevent it from being a culturally useful, culture and even species-independent, moral reference. All it takes to become a moral ought is for a group to decide to advocate and enforce it as a moral ought. — Mark S

This process is what we call intersubjective agreement - these often become reified over time (as you suggest). I suspect this process isn't just how morality develops, but is also behind many of our ideas of knowledge. I recall a quote from some postmodernist - the truth is a subjectivity we all share.

Final question and forgive me if this seems obtuse - how to do you discern between good and bad cooperation?

Thanks for that extensive answer. I can't really comment as it is not my area of expertise. For what it's worth, I don't think of science as uncovering the truth about reality - I see it as providing tentative approaches or theories, using the best information we have available at a given time, subject to revision. Humans don't have access to ultimate reality or a 'value free' view from nowhere.

I like the idea of letting go of the need to know, being able to live with uncertainty and thus cultivating ataraxia. I see that stance above as all as truthful in being able to live in accordance with our actual situation. — Janus

I tend to agree with this. If only for the fact that most metaphysical views or scientific theories make no difference to how I live my life or what choices I make.

It makes the case that geology can also be determinative historically. — T Clark

Indeed.

Can you give us an example? — T Clark

I'm not going to touch that one. :wink:

Ok. Sounds somewhat too ambitious for me but I would be interested to hear it. I'm not a customer for the product 'objectively real' - except in a contingent sense, wherein certain actions can generate certain results, or may be useful for certain purposes. Beyond this is blackness...

I think what you have written here would be generally supported by many people.

Yes - the West began the game ahead of the pack, owing to historic 'advantages' - colonization, empire, slavery, etc.

how critical capitalism has been in shaping the economic prosperity of countries. — Judaka

How helpful has the economic prosperity of a rich country been to its citizens? That's a question I often ponder.

How laudable is economic prosperity? Does economic prosperity even mean the same thing in different countries? Amassing capital is one thing. How it is spent is another. The opposite of capitalism isn't a failed state. There are rich capitalist countries I can think of that seem close to failed states.

There are comparatively poor countries I would prefer to live in over hugely wealthy ones. One thing about economic analysis is that it is like theology - cryptic, mystical, faith based and contested. I studied economics years ago and took a particular interest in Japan. I recall the American thinker Deming and the system he developed as being critical to the post-war Japanese economic miracle of innovation and quality.

Sometimes economic success comes through working smarter, not harder, sometimes it's built on population size, sometimes it's provided by abundant natural resources, sometimes war plays a role. Or all of the above.

I'm not even sure what point we are trying to address. :wink:

No. I'm writing a submission and diverting myself with this site.

All I was asking about was a plain English account of what you have already written in 3-4 sentences. I'm not asking for any additional work. If you are unable to clarify it further, that's ok too, we can move on.

I'm afraid that doesn't help me - I have no idea what the words mean.
How about this?

What is -

the inherent non-self-evidentiality of perception — Pantagruel

Is this a reference to the lack of justification for realism?

What is -

the perception of the real-objective — Pantagruel

Is this a reference to a Kantian things as they appear?

What is -

a function of the apprehension of the entire "system of general laws — Pantagruel

This one has me stumped.

I'm also not sure how that answers my question -

Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? Is there anything that couldn't be justified by using such an intuitive approach? — Tom Storm

It seems to me that an initiative approach can be used to justify any position anyone might wish to make at any time. No?

Originally I was commenting on this -

Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel

I guess some people might consider perception in this light? Sorry to be pedantic - I was intrigued by the point.

Nice. :up:

how the inherent non-self-evidentiality of perception means that the perception of the real-objective must be a function of the apprehension of the entire "system of general laws", which he clearly demarcates as separate from science. — Pantagruel

I'm not sure what this means. Can you restate it in simple or clearer language?

I’m ok with that answer. Thanks.

Some kind of "intellectual intuition?" — Pantagruel

Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? Is there anything that couldn't be justified by using such an intuitive approach?

Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel

Interesting. What would be an example of this in action?

I'm confused by this discussion. And Mark I can't seem to understand what you are arguing for - which may be my fault.

Mark does your approach tell us what we ought to do by identifying universal moral behaviors?

What are universal moral behaviors - are they the same as oughts?

What I have said is that:
• Descriptively moral behaviors are parts of cooperation strategies
• Universally moral behaviors are parts of cooperation strategies that do not exploit others. — Mark S

These sentences confuse me - admittedly I am not a philosopher.

What does ' are parts of cooperation strategies' mean? Which parts? What constitutes the rest of these parts?

Is a universally moral behavior an ought?

What qualifies as a cooperation strategy?

So sure, cooperation, games theory, and anthropology might well be a useful part of a moral perspective; but they are not the whole. — Banno

For the non-philosopher, what do you recommend as a reasonable foundation for morality?

It seems reasonable to me to say, insofar, as alchemy dealt with substances, which chemistry also does with, that in that sense chemistry evolved from or out of alchemy, and similarly with astrology and astronomy. But both alchemy and astrology (more so the latter) still exist as disciplines, which science does not take seriously. — Janus

Cool. Sounds like we are on the same page. Of course, the Jungian view of alchemy was it was an allegory for the search for God.

Alchemy and astrology do not involve those kinds of hypotheses, so that's why I speak of a paradigm shift. — Janus

Yep, pretty sure I mostly agree with your summary.

As a layperson, I can well imagine the ambition to discover some kind of secular and universal formula for morality. It reminds me of the alchemist's quest to turn base metal into gold.

If coherence and simplicity are values, and if we cannot deny with out falling into total self-refuting subjectivism that they are objective (notwithstanding their "softness," the lack of well-defined "criteria," and so forth), then the classic argument against the objectivity of ethical values is totally undercut.” — Joshs

Interesting. I can't see how we would begin to assert notions of 'the good' or virtue, except through connecting these to values we have arrived at through some kind of intersubjective process. And there will always be those who don't 'see it' or agree or find curious exemptions.

Thank you for that. Nice and clear.

That in turn can be traced back to The Embodied Mind. Published in 1991, it explores the idea that cognition is not solely a product of the brain but is grounded in the dynamic interaction between the body, the mind, and the environment. The book draws on insights from various disciplines, including cognitive science, phenomenology, and Buddhist philosophy, to propose a new understanding of the mind that emphasizes embodiment and action. — Wayfarer

I think this makes sense and accords with my sense of things. I've watched a number of interviews and lectures with Evan Thompson and read some papers.

You did use the term 'created by the mind of beings' before - I'm assuming you intended this as analogous with enactivism - the 'dynamic interaction' you referred to above? I was a little thrown by 'created'.

But one striking thing I noticed in studying the early Buddhist texts, is the frequent recurrence of the compound term, ‘self and world’, in dialogues on the nature of the self. Buddhism would put it that self and world ‘co-arise’ - which is the perspective that enactivism draws on. — Wayfarer

That is interesting and kind of hard to ignore as, dare I say it, common sense.

All our roads seem to lead towards phenomenology... :wink:

In other words, the world is created by the mind of beings. — Wayfarer

Intriguing. Can you say some more on this? In broad brush strokes, how is the world created by the mind of beings? And how is that contrasted with a sovereignty of self?

It seems wrong to say that alchemy, religion and folklore became chemistry and medicine. In keeping with the idea of significant paradigm shifts in human thought and investigation "were replaced by chemistry and medicine" seems more apt.

I agree that what might be classed as metaphysical speculation (abductive reasoning or extrapolating imaginable possibilities) certainly plays a role in science, but I can think of no examples of metaphysics becoming science. — Janus

That's a very interesting point. So often I've heard people say that chemistry evolved from alchemy and astronomy evolved from astrology. I'm interested in your use of the word 'replaced' as in, I imagine, 'superseded' by? What happens in this process of replacement? Are paradigm shifts still seen as an appropriate way to describe the evolution of human thought models? I wonder what the process was that led alchemy to be superseded by chemistry - was alchemy in any way foundational in this process?

Whereas the idea that the way things appear to humans, is the way they truly are, amounts to a kind of tacit assertion of omniscience. — Wayfarer

Or exceptional luck. :razz:

Is our civilization critically imbalanced? How could applying Yin-Yang concepts help? — 0 thru 9

Maybe there's some substance in what you say but I'm not convinced our woes are a matter of 'balance' as such. Balance ( a more even distribution) seems too symmetrical, too neat a category to resolve the global issues we face. We live in a culture with distorted values and concomitant behaviours in numerous domains. To ask for balance IMO may not really address the problems. You could equality posit that what we need is a commitment to political transformation or a 'return to nature' crusade.

Any one of us can posit that the real problem is how capitalism operates and the urgent need for people to care more for others. But would balance be a substantive solution, or is it more about changing who we are, what we believe and who is in charge? Is wanting less of some things and more of other things about balance (in the colloquial, conversationalist sense, perhaps)? Not sure if it is at a deeper level.

Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. — Judaka

Does morality mandate anythign or does a dominant culture with an official morality do this? Which is a separate issue to morality.

Morality will generally be connected to a worldview and values (religious or secular) and it is from this source, not the morality itself, that you will encounter context, justifications and coercion.

No culture has one morality as such, there are multiple perspectives, multiple moralities, views, opinions and then there are laws. Morality is incoherent and people don't pay much attention to it. Even within one religion - Christianity say - there are multiple interpretations of morality which explains why there are Christians who 'damn fags' and others who fly the rainbow flag of diversity. There are Christians who refuse to fight in wars and others who are enthusiastic members of the armed focus. Some who support euthanasia and others who are against it.

I tend to think of morality as a series of codes of conduct. Bernado Kastrup has an interesting definition - 'Humans create morality to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order.'

Yes. People with no beliefs don’t care about trans, etc. What you seem to be saying is there are significant numbers of voters who hold such views through some religious values. And parties exploit these. Which is where I was heading.

:up:

Of course. I am assuming that this far right generally locates its core values in debased and bigoted expressions of religion.

My pet theory is that gender stereotypes have become more extreme due to tik-tokkable and instagrammable views of extreme feminity and masculinity, leading to increased rejection of people who do not fit the norm (such rejection can be real or perceived). In other words, societies have become less liberal and accepting of variation in gender expression with an increased risk of gender dysphoria as a result. — Benkei

Interesting. I'm sure social media plays a role. I think the other fact is that if you build awareness (and tolerance) then more people will feel comfortable to identify and explore their identity.

I think we can address them without condemning transsexuals or transgenders. — Benkei

I think this is the key. As humans we are constantly extending ourselves. We can do it. And sure, there may be challenges and dilemas along the way.

I loved Suttree. Knoxville in the 1950's: a glorious celebration of darkness, destitution, drinking, deviance, dancing and death.

Apologies for the length. — Manuel

No, this is good. Thanks.

Chomsky also makes the point that even though the mind may emerge from the physical matter of the brain, the nature of physical matter is still beyond our understanding.

56min - the problem is with the physical. When you talk about reducing Consciousness to physical you don't know what physical is. Physical is just whatever the Sciences say.
58min - whatever matter turns out to be — RussellA

Chomsky seems to repudiate idealism (in the recent Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal interview). He says something like he sides with 'normal science'.

If the physical is whatever science says it is, then I guess the physical is quantum waves (at this point in time) right?

I'm a little unclear on his privileging science (methodological naturalism and empiricism) and saying that we don't understand the physical. Is there some tension in this?

Do you believe that if the nature of physical matter is beyond our understating then idealism gets a boost as an alternative ontology?

The idea that the physical remains incoherent or inexplicable probably needs its own thread and a clear but brief articulation as to why someone might argue this. I'm not sure I fully get this from Chomsky. Maybe it's my comprehension but he seems to lead to his argument without exploring it more fully.

That's a great interview. Thanks.

My firm conviction is that h.sapiens transcends biology, and is able to realise horizons of being that are, as far as we know, unique to us. — Wayfarer

:up:

What sex or gender a person chooses to be, worries me a lot less, (in fact it pales into insignificance in comparison) compared to a person who chooses to be a trump supporter, a religious zealot, a capitalist, a billionaire, a plutocrat, a celebrity cult, a personality cult, a narcissist, an autocrat, an aristocrat, etc. — universeness

:fire: I hear you.

As they say in court - you find your experts, I'll find mine.

I've known personally and worked with a fair number of trans people. It has always been a marked quality of life improvement for each of them. I now know a number of teens who have identified as trans. Their lives have also improved immeasurably. The lived experience is the thing that matters. But I fail to see how a ceaseless back and forth on this is of any use. Trans is here to stay - the arguments are largely moot.

Mostly you seem unable to address the issue and are relying upon outliers and hasty generalization fallacies. Andrew, it is pretty clear this is a developing space and there are things we need to work through. But pointing to special examples the way you do is like pointing to abuse of boys by Catholic clergy and concluding homosexuality is child abuse.

But nobody can change sex or live as the opposite sex. A defleshed inverted penis is literally not a vagina and it is a misogynistic insult to call it so. Women's biology is how we all entered the world. — Andrew4Handel

That is such a literal minded, banal observation. It is pretty clear empirically that people do live well and happily as genders other than their birth gender. A reductive focus on sex organs and sex in general is beside the point.

People who believe peoples gender identity claims should also believe peoples religious claims. — Andrew4Handel

This is a fairly poor false equivalence. I'm sure you are a smart person but that sounds like the kind of limited thinking that would have someone provide rickety straw man arguments like - 'But what if someone identifies as a Lego brick, would you agree with that?' Yeah, right....

A religious claim involves something supernatural or ineffable which cannot be identified or even described (e.g., gods and goddesses). Gender identity is a human phenomenon we can identify and point to and have conversations about. For me gender is an open question, our understanding of it is developing all the time. What harm is there in allowing people to be who they need to be? And can this be answered without straw manning, catastrophizing or using the hasty generalization fallacy?

Sounds like trans issues really upset you.

I accept the gender and sex you tell me you are.
The rest is a matter of a case by case basis imo.
Who can go to which area and compete in which sport etc, is simply 'issues' yet to be fully ironed out.
In my youth and probably up to around my mid 30's, I was very 'anti,' towards all non-heterosexual people. — universeness

:up: Exactly. Humans can work the through issues. Gender is complex and if someone needs to be male or female on non-binary where the fuck is the problem? People think it's against god or against nature. They think it's a war on truth. I heard all the same shit about homosexuality back a few decades back and even now in some communities.

The arguments are almost irrelevant. It's here. It's happening. It's not going away. Deal with it respectfully and respect people's choices. We can prevent suicides and depression and miserable lives if we can just agree to accept people's need to be who they are.