I'm not from the philosophy world but are there not various ways to dissolve the 'hard problem' - from Thomas Metzinger to some forms of phenomenology or idealism? Why are you not an idealist? BTW I'm a partial mysterian, in as much as I don't know if this subject will ever be resolved. The only reason I have an interest in the mind body relationship is that it is used endlessly by folk to demonstrate the 'truth' of spirit and souls. I have no reason to think that the world (whatever this is) is understandable to humans, except as metaphor and via tentative models.

Sorry, It wasn't meant to be personal. — Gnomon

No need to apologize - I don't take things personally. I was just correcting your take on my point.

I apologize, if my finger-pointing at Atheist & Theist apologists sounded offensive to you personally. Typically, I find your posts to be a calm port in a stormy sea of opinions :cool: — Gnomon

No problem I didn't take you as being finger pointing. You always seem reasonable towards other's views. :up:

It is indeed "interesting" that both sides in the "fear of nihilism" vs "fear of religion" contentions make similar "self-contradictory" arguments. — Gnomon

I'm not sure they are self-contradictory. They are just the same argument coming from opposite directions and demonstrate that we can't use either version as anything more than anecdote.

One of my issues with the evolutionary argument against naturalism is that I accept that human's don't have access to ultimate truth. I see no reason to think there is ultimate truth. Such truth that we have access too is either a value we hold, or something we can use to make sense of our environment (or both). We do acquire usable, demonstrated knowledge that allows us to survive. That in itself is a pretty good test of a quotidian truth value.

After all these years, the origin of meta-physical Consciousness in a physical world remains a mystery. — Gnomon

I agree that there is no certainty about this. But I don't believe this gives us permission to fill the gap with metaphysical speculation. We don't know. I'm not even sure we have the right questions about this subject yet. We have an incomplete understanding. Yet I am sympathetic to the idea that consciousness is a kind of illusory phenomenon. But I would never argue that this is the case until we know more.

Is it your view that H is deliberately using difficult language for obfuscatory purposes or that he just happens to use difficult wording because that's how he thought? It certainly seems to make it hard for others to get a read of him.

Your implication of nefarious motives — Gnomon

I also don't think I made the point that it is nefarious. Can you explain why this might be seen as nefarious?

:up: Nicely worded too.

Dolphins can't walk, moths can't help themselves from flying into lightbulbs, which is often suicidal, etc. — Manuel

I've often though this latter one was a good metaphor for humans and the urge to find meaning through religions. :razz:

It could be the case that we are so constituted that we can... — Manuel

Ok, but for me it seems impossible to determine when this 'could be' becomes an 'is'.

tribalism fuels hatred which fuels politics which fuels tribalism which fuels hatred . . . ad nauseum, ad infinitum. — Arne

It may not be such a breathless whirlwind. Tribalism becomes politics and politics can fuel hatred - especially when kerosene is poured over flames of resentment by media corporations who benefit from perpetuating conflicts, like Murdoch.

Guilt by association may be emotionally persuasive, but it's not a good logical argument. Your implication of nefarious motives for the Christian rejection of an Atheist article of faith (based on "Fear of Religion" motives?) may be correct. But what if the Christian thinkers are also correct to see Mind from Mindless as a logical paradox? — Gnomon

Huh? I think you are projecting. I'm not intending to make a logical argument by raising this. I am making what I think is an interesting observation that an atheist philosopher would use the language and arguments of Christian apologetics. As far as I know, this has not been said about Nagel here before. You'll note, I also said they were 'cool arguments'.

'Mind from Mindlessness' as I also suggested, could be a thread here for further discussion.

It is a poor author that makes a living bashing faith be it of any denomination. — invicta

It is a poor author who makes a living fleecing multitudes with supernatural snake-oil of any kind.

The context is Nagel's observation about how the idea of any kind of consonance between mind and world is strenuously resisted, as a consequence of it seeming to be too near to religion. — Wayfarer

I did get that point, but from what I've seen, there is also the case of those strenuously resisting free-thought, for fear of it being too near to dangerous nihilism. There may still be great courage involved in holding that life has no inherent purpose, that we are here for a brief flash, then gone forever. There seems to be a comprehensive mechanism described in Terror Management Theory to deal with this elemental fear of meaninglessness and annihilation.

He says that the idea that the mind evolved as a consequence of mindless physical forces is self-contradictory and that there must be a teleological explanation for the existence of conscious beings. — Wayfarer

Yeah, well these, like Nagel's other arguments seem to be right out of the Christian apologist's playbook ('atheism is self-refuting', etc), in seeking to address atheism and the fear of nihilism. (And yes, I know N isn't a Christian and a nominal atheist) I have heard hours of this stuff over the years and it is ususally put in the sort of language Nagel uses here - especially if they are influenced by Van Til or Plantinga. They are cool arguments, I agree, but I don't find them convincing. My favourite is the one about the logical absolutes proving the perfect mind of god essentially as guarantor of intelligibility. 'God' of course can be understood as old language for 'higher consciousness'.

Maybe we need a thread on the evolutionary argument against naturalism if you haven't done one yet. There must be one here already... I've probably written in it.

I am talking about something much deeper--namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself. I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that. — Thomas Nagel

The problem with this not especially useful observation from Nagel is there is an equal and commonly held fear of atheism which can be expressed in exactly the same way as Nagel talks about the fear of religion.

Having worked in palliative and end of life care, I have seen many religious and formerly religious folk die. It is quite astonishing how many Christians confess to their fear of atheism in the same terms Nagel uses but in reverse. Their faith often dies before they do. One former priest I knew, Vincent, put it along these lines -

"A lot of us in faith roles are haunted by the idea that we are wrong, that there actually is no god. That we have been selling people a lie and leading them on. We are terrified that the atheists are right. We are taught to avoid or pity atheists, but they seem to have a better account of suffering and morality and are generally better educated than believers and more tolerant about human behaviour and more charitable towards others. There is little evidence that there's order on our planet or any special meaning for humans, but we fight against this thought and hope our faith will protect us from doubt and from our true feelings."

In this vein there is even a busy organisation, The Clergy Project which supports large groups of clergy all over the world who have lost their faith and have embraced their worst fear - that atheism provides a more reasonable approach than theism. They never wanted a world like that. They were often unprepared for this, but can't help what they believe.

Could be. I personally don't have anything against Heidegger as a thinker (how could I?) and what I have read does sound intriguing. I simply don't have the time, capacity and background experience to acquire a useful reading of him. But I would say the same about Kant or Derrida and many more in my case. I am here mostly to understand to the best of my ability what the key concerns and themes are.

Very interesting perspective.

It's a very broad view that takes it that there is only one kind of stuff - physical stuff, and it incorporates everything: history, literature, stars, ideas - everything is physical. This goes to show how baffling the nature of the physical is. — Manuel

Can you briefly comment on how real naturalism understands logical absolutes and math and how do we understand an idea as physical?

Most of all, I'm a card carrying "mysterian", who believes that there are many aspects of the world and ourselves that we simply cannot know in principle, — Manuel

How do you determine whether something can in principle not be known?

Take musical sages: maybe there are jazz sages, classical sages, heavy metal sages, punk sages...maybe sagehood is a specialized business...who knows? :nerd: — Janus

I want to meet a sage sage.

Seriously though, no one's seeing is perfect...or maybe only the sage's. — Janus

Raises an interesting question. Assuming we can identify who is deserving of the appellation 'sage' what kind of taste (aesthetic preferences) do sages have? What if the Dalai Lama (say) prefers the films of Michael Bay to those of Stanley Kubrick? What if good taste is an exclusive purview of the profane...

You dislike both but can you perceive the quality in Shakespeare? I can, and I don't particularly like his works either, in the sense that I have no desire to read them. — Janus

Ha! Shakespeare is more nuanced and 'deeper' more skill.

For me Beethoven is the greater composer, both in terms of harmonic inventiveness and "depth", but I can't give you any argument for that beyond mere assertion. — Janus

Agree on both points.

I think it's just a matter of seeing. As an analogy, where is our ability to recognize pattern located? Every leaf of a particular species of tree is different and yet the same; where is that difference and sameness located? The question seems meaningless. — Janus

Whenever people say a question is meaningless I suspect it is redolent... gravid with meaning. :razz:

Perhaps the best things in life just cannot be explained...to be explicable is to be pedestrian. — Janus

How then do we determine which are the best things? :wink:

Is there a connection between temporality and the Nazisms? — Fooloso4

I think this was located in Arbeit macht frei.

What is beauty? Who can say? Must all things of an aesthetic character be beautiful? It seems not. I don't think it has anything to do with platonic forms. — Janus

It may not. But I suspect if we are going to say there is a standard of beauty then where is this located? How is this standard to be understood, except as an 'immutable form' or something culturally located?

It was Kant who pointed out that when we deem something to possess aesthetic value, we take ourselves to be talking about something universal. and not to be merely talking about personal liking. — Janus

And in my conversations with people this is often how they consider their judgements. As somehow objective and true.

Shakespeare just is better than Mills and Boon, — Janus

I dislike and avoid both. But I know what you are saying.

You are essentially talking about sophistication and layering. But not all great art is complex or nuanced.

I think aesthetic vale is real, — Janus

I think a lot of people believe this. I am uncertain. I don't know how we would justify this but maybe we can.

I personally think that to judge something as aesthetically valuable is a bit like pragmatic accounts of truth - subject to certain purposes. If you are going to appeal to middle-aged English professors (for instance) Shakespeare is better than Dan Brown. If you are appealing to my mum (now dead) Brown is better.

But how do we determine whether Mozart is a better composer than Beethoven? When works are nuanced and complex it's a more complex conundrum.

Deserves it's own thread.

The trick with aesthetics is to get it off the ground you have to, in some sense, be talking about more than what you individually like. — Moliere

I think that's a useful observation. I guess if we set standards of 'good' and 'bad' aesthetics, we probably need something like Platonic forms, right? Or else aesthetics is untied to anything but cultural and personal values, which are transitory. As a reluctant anti-foundationalist, I gravitate to the latter.

Some years ago I participated in a discussion of the Tractatus. — Fooloso4

Oh great, I'll read with interest. Cheers.

:up:

The distinction that’s usually made is between conservatives and reactionaries, where the latter want to turn the clock back, or at least say they do, appealing to past glory. The interesting thing, and I think you were saying something similar, is that reactionaries can be radical. — Jamal

Absolutely right from where I sit. :up:

It certainly seemed that way to me when I first read him. It took me a lot of time and work to see that there is a clarity to his style. — Fooloso4

Good answer and thank you for being patient.

What one who understands him gets from the book is a way of seeing in distinction from something said to be known. — Fooloso4

Important distinction, transition even.

There's so much homework to do in this philosophy caper... I probable need to focus on a few sections of the Tractatus and see how it sits with me.

Right, but people don't fight egregiously over whether Rembrandt was a greater artist than Leonardo or Jackson Pollock is better than Andy Warhol, or T S Eliot better than Wallace Stevens. — Janus

Actually they do. Well they did in my world - Melbourne arts scene. There were fights and feuds so bitter over issues like abstract versus figurative, Warhol versus Goya (often framed via Robert Hughes criticism) you wouldn't believe the vehemence. Including fist fights in the pub. And consider the Nazi's and their 1937 exhibition of degenerate art and what this meant for the artist's welfare. And speaking of artist's welfare - ask Shostakovich about what it was like to displease Stalin and the politburo with few dud bars in a symphony. Not producing the right kind of art has been ever bit as problematic around the world as not holding the right belief systems.

But I do take your point.

On the other hand the suffering that can be involved with chemo and radiotherapy may not be worth the trade-off in terms of the little extra life they are capable of offering — Janus

No. They are saying you don't need pain killers or treatment if you have faith. They are cunts.

Of course the sovereignty of the individual must be balanced against the social responsibility that comes with that sovereignty, which is of course the respect for the sovereignty of other individuals. — Janus

Indeed.

A single act of charity or sacrifice can bring tears to the eyes, much like a piece of music. So I think there is something to the idea that morality, even basic manners, has a certain beauty to it. — NOS4A2

Nice. There's a great deal in this idea.

The world would be a far better place if people learned to speak only for themselves, and fully realize that they speak only for themselves. — Janus

I think this is true but so hard when identity is often based on a community of shared values which often feels or is marginalized.

That's interesting. Thank you.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are a good pair to compare and contrast in this context. — Janus

The salt and pepper brothers!

I think the debate over God being understood in aesthetic terms is like debating the aesthetic worth of art works, poetry or music. — Janus

It is, but 'taste' is also where the passion is. I'm fascinated by passion and commitment and why some ideas and not others.

I don't think science should be privileged over the supernatural or vice versa per se — Janus

I think lots would agree. I have a sister in-law with terminal cancer. There are some friends of hers who have said - don't get treatment, all you need is prayer. This for me is when the supernatural becomes problematic. When it exceeds its speculative limitations and becomes a course of potentially harmful action.

Again I think that is an absurd argument. It might seem to someone that veneration of the divine is deeper, richer and more beautiful than nihilism, but that is merely a personal preference. Others may see it the other way around. — Janus

Good point.

Thanks.

It reads like Dan Brown on methaqualone.

The upside of Machiavellian dictators & Tyrant gods is that they mandate order --- making the trains run on time --- making it rain for the pious. But the downside is that they surround themselves with yes-men, and kill-off independent thinkers (philosophers), who ask too many questions. — Gnomon

And too often they commit genocide. Who was it that said a society that burns books will eventually burn people? Is gassing to death men, women and children an appropriate price to pay for the trains running on time, I wonder? And as we saw in Stalin's time, even the pious aren't safe from a capricious and jealous god. :razz: Independent thinking isn't the threat. Other people are the threat, as authoritarianism debases itself though paranoia and listlessness. Look at God and Job. An exquisitely Stalinist stunt by a cunt.

That whole concept appears to have become obsolete.... hijacked by shills who replace patriotism with jingoist xenophobia; christian forbearance with militant religiosity; family and community cohesion with the vilification of minorities - tawdry imitations of conservative values.
Or so it seems to me. — Vera Mont

I think that's also what Roger Scruton thought. He bemoaned the fact that the conservative tradition had been coopted by corporate statists and cultural philistines, vandals and assorted self-aggrandizing parasites. But we all know that words are changeable things and they are often purloined by the wrong crowd. How often has term democracy been falsely employed by authoritarians and dictators?

I saw a documentary on atheism once. The documentarian said a world without religion seemed "thin" to him. He was an atheist, but he appreciated the full bodied mythology, art, and community associated with religion.

It wasn't a reason to believe. Maybe more of a reason for tolerance. — frank

Nice. Thank you.

My world is solipsistic. It is mine alone. It is the world as I see it. As I experience it. — Fooloso4

My world is a private language? Is not my world then a beetle in a box?

The facts of the world do not change, but how I experience it does. To be happy is to be in accord with the world, to not set one's will against the world. — Fooloso4

Why can't the man simply write clearly? Why the fucking riddles and bloody obtuse prose style? :razz:

I'm a bit of an 'atheist Christian' or some such nonsense in the sense that incarnation myth speaks to me (as myth). — plaque flag

I get you. I'm partial to the Good Samaritan story. It opened up a broader notion of morality to me when I was a kid. We can't help but be shaped by tradition - Nietzsche's shadows on the cave wall...

I'm afraid Hegel is like a too rich chocolate cake. I can only have a nibble before feeling done...



.

I think you've nailed down a great issue. Of course the professor just couldn't appreciate the kind of beauty available to the atheist, — plaque flag

I think this is right. Is it Norman Rockwell versus Salvador Dali...? too obvious and pat, maybe. I've come to think that rival aesthetical perspectives may be as significant a source of misunderstanding and conflict as anything generated by politics.

Appreciated.

t is clear that ethics cannot be put into words.
Ethics is transcendental.
(Ethics and aesthetics are one and the same.) — Fooloso4

I now remember encountering this some time ago. Given the role an ethical system might have on the suffering of conscious creatures can we say they are precisely the same thing? The consequences of ethics versus the consequences of aesthetics seem to operate in different worlds to me.

If the good or bad exercise of the will does alter the world, it can alter only the limits of the world, not the facts—not what can be expressed by means of language.
In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to
speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man. — Fooloso4

This one is like trying to make sense of the Tao Te Ching.

Our moral choices can change the world - but not the facts; that which can be expressed. OK.

This I don't get -

In short the effect must be that it becomes an altogether different world. It must, so to
speak, wax and wane as a whole.
The world of the happy man is a different one from that of the unhappy man

Translation please, Sir. Is it the nature of subjective experience?

Is there annotated Wittgenstein available on line? I can stare at a couple of sentences of his for hours and get precisely nowhere.

To my advantage, they are the bad boy trouble makers of the Catholic Church. I think I probably argued along the lines of seeing his attack on Christianity as something for Christian critical self-examination. — Fooloso4

Nicely done. Yes, Nietzsche is like the loyal opposition, a human adversary against which to sharpen their beliefs. But a lot of Christians seem to like Nietzsche too, given some of the consequences he predicts for the culture following the death of God.

I think "aesthetic reasoning" can be used, at best, to rationalize "morality and meaning". It's actually akin to fideism, no? — 180 Proof

Could be. Rationalisation sounds like a more precise account of it.

Even “ghastly nihilism” can be seen aesthetically. — praxis

Indeed. I think that's what I'm saying - the aesthetics of atheism and nihilism is a turn off aesthetically to some. So it must be a 'turn on' for others. But you've got me thinking. Is there anything which can't be regarded aesthetically?

Ironically Nietzsche rejected Christianity and God precisely on aesthetic grounds. And he thought most philosophy through the ages essentially boiled down to a rationalisation for morality, aesthetics : — ChatteringMonkey

Nice. Thank you.

t is, unconsciously... but usually no philosopher will admit as much consciously, that is the philosophers conceit, their pride in their reason getting in the way. — ChatteringMonkey

I suspect this is right.

In the Tractatus Wittgenstein treated morality as an aesthetic rather than intellectual matter. A matter of what one sees and experiences, of how one stands in relation to the world. — Fooloso4

I need to follow this up.

Personally I think the 'aesthetic' is too easily relegated to the sidelines of philosophical chat. — mcdoodle

Interesting.

That is the area of opinion that you are ascribing to 'religion': that there is some wholeness, in this supposedly religious view, that integrates talk about 'meaning' and talk about 'aesthetics'. (Morality is another step on) — mcdoodle

Yes. I referred to some people who use it to 'rationalise' religious belief, but it may well be used in a range of ways.

Hannah Ginsborg has written about this (including a Stanford entry on the topic) but it is under-explored. — mcdoodle

I'll check this out.

Hitchens saw value in the word numinous as well, whereas I have always associated that word with other rather woo woo words like transcendent. — universeness

I just see it as a variation of wonder and awe which are quotidian experiences. But I do have a penchant for some religious language. They haver fun words.

It is an aesthetic standard, but I still find it compelling, or at least appealing. I'm not sure how that fits into your discussion, but it's what came to mind. — T Clark

I think it is related. Thanks.

Fuck yeah ! (Is this just an Americanism? Or you got it over there too?) — plaque flag

Fuck yeah! We've got all your words down here.

Feel free to use any Australianism you want, Mate. Enjoy.

What do the aesthetics of the universe do for you? — universeness

Occasionally, when I am in the outback, I am struck by the extraordinary star scape. The Australian bush is primeval and powerful and it often scares me. But nothing I've seen appears to have influenced my view of life.

I remain unsure of your personal position as regards being an overall life celebrant — universeness

I think life and humans are pretty dreadful, but what can you do? I don't whine. I don't celebrate. I have a tendency towards optimism which, try as I might, I can't suppress. Absurdism works for me too.

You're a guy who loves life and has a sense of the numinous, whilst recognising the tragedies and pitfalls all around us, and you don't even believe in the Big Sky Motherfucker! Good for you, Cobber!