Idealism, in the way that I intend it, and I think in the sense in which it is meaningful, is not about what 'things are made of'. It is about the nature of reality as experienced. — Wayfarer

Yes. I can see this. And I like this more sophisticated framing of the idea.

Buddhist philosophy takes a view which is neither idealistic nor materialistic; Buddhists do not believe that the Universe is composed of only matter. They believe that there is something else other than matter. But there is a difficulty here; if we use a concept like spirit to describe that something else other than matter, people are prone to interpret Buddhism as some form of spiritualistic religion and think that Buddhists must therefore believe in the actual existence of spirit. So it becomes very important to understand the Buddhist view of the concept spirit. — Three Philosophies, One Reality

Cool. Noted.

Fuck, there's a lot to remember is this caper...

Have a restful break.

I've seen the word "subsist" to refer to the referent of the first statement. So, chairs exists and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding? — Art48

I think this refers to the old debate about mathematical platonism - were numbers invented or discovered? It's one of those endless debates which ultimately circles back to the nature of reality and what counts as transcendental. There's an entire thread on this here somewhere and many references to this in idealism discussions. To subsist, I believe, is to 'exist' conceptually but not as an object located in space and time - like a chair. Or something like this.

It may not mean much, but I have found your ongoing conversation on this matter very interesting. It's been quite a display of endurance. Ultimately, it seems to be down to whether one finds the arguments convincing or not, as inferences don't always lead us all to the same conclusions.

We don't even fully understand or definitely know what causation, or anything else, is. We have a "folk" understanding of what we think consciousness is. There is not really a naive realism, but also a naive idealism. How are we going to find out the truth of these matters? Even scientific theories are defeasible. — Janus

I think this is sensible. I personally can't rule out idealism, but I have no good reason as yet to accept it as true. But who here actually has any expertise in this matter? Are we just unsophisticated yokels sounding off about ideas we find most appealing emotionally?

I will conclude for now by making the observation that nothing is 'purely' or 'only' physical. That has been made abundantly clear by physics. It is not an appeal to 'quantum woo', as I've studied the issue closely, from a philosophical perspective. It is beyond dispute that at the most fundamental level, we can no longer conceive of reality in terms of particulate matter, of energetic particles obeying deteministic laws. Determinism went out the window with the uncertainty principle, and it's not going to be revived. Particles are now understood to be excitations of field states. And what field states are is far from obvious. — Wayfarer

It's a case well put. But how do we rule out a different approach and model all together? Does it have to be physicalism versus idealsim? Is dualistic thinking all we have to resolve our biggest quesions? I'd be interested to hear more from a rigorous, post-modern perspective assessing the foundational axioms or presuppositions that may be propping up our confusions. And if the world is entirely mind created and contingent, how do we know anything for certain about either metaphysical position?

It's a great way to instill a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and social responsibility in our children.
a day ago — Alonsoaceves

I doubt this. I grew up in a time where what you are suggesting was standard and obligatory practice. We were all made to learn lessons of responsibility, gratitude and to memorialise the positive achievements of others. You only have to look at sitcoms of 50 years ago to see that even these were generally presented like moral instruction as Alex P Keaton or Richie Cunningham were taught (and by extension, we, the audience) a series of lessons about humility, integrity and other virtues. It made no difference. Look where we are now, the world reared on this material. Perhaps a reaction to the moralistic, stifling mainstream preaching of yesterday? I think we probably need entirely new notions of community and citizenship. But if we do, it will need to come of its own, you can't make these things happen.

Where did the cocaine come in to the conversation? I thought they were talking about prostitution...

But when a few drugs were decriminalised in Canberra a year ago, it was predicted to be the begining of the end.... It wasn't. — Banno

Indeed.

Cocaine was named as a base pleasure. I said this:

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the pleasure cocaine can provide. Many people I've known use it a few times a year with great satisfaction and wellbeing. Addiction to coke however is a problem. But so is an addiction to hard work. So is an addition to alcohol, which can also be used responsibly, with great happiness and pleasure. — Tom Storm

Apparently this means I want to legalize cocaine. :wink: I have made no comments about legalization.

I do have a problem with people talking about good pleasures versus base pleasures. My point is it's the act that has the moral dimension, not the pleasure. But really I'm just asking questions. I don't think using alcohol or drugs for fun is necessarily a moral question.

Above and beyond this, I also think that it is possible for an immoral person (however we understand this) to live a happy and rewarding life. I do not mean this as an endorsement (although surely this is an unnecessary qualifier).

We never know what personal challenges a member here might be facing, so I generally don't return aggressive responses. I find it curious that your inferences are taking you to such adverse conclusions. I apologize if my posts have been unclear.

So you're just saying things you don't believe to be true. That's called lying. — Leontiskos

I wonder however you arrived at this? Name calling too. That's called strange. doesn't seem to be having any trouble following.

With that being said, I rather think it is the reason for the act needing the closest examination. It is, after all, my act, determined by my reason, so I am the act’s causality — Mww

I'll mull this over. I am happy to be convinced to change my view. :up:

superficial personal gratifications, mere desires. — Mww

I'm somewhat skeptical of this idea, but I understand its attractions and history.

Yes, I find this one interesting. I am curious that people talk about good pleasures versus bad pleasures. I don't think there really is a distinction between feelings of wellbeing and satisfaction, or however else one wants to describe flourishing.

For me it is the act we are questioning and whether this should or should not provide a person with satisfaction. My own view is that a career criminal may well have a more pleasurable and satisfying life than a 'saint'. Knowing this is probably why humans constructed notions of heaven and hell, since there are not always consequences for crimes on earth.

My joke above, following the quote about the use of bought sex, is simply an observation that there is no recipe for happiness and a rewarding life. Discrete use of sex workers for pleasure might lead to someone's overall flourishing, while a marriage (which some might like to present as a virtuous contrast to naughty prostitution) might be like dying inside. Life is not simple.

Do you really think cocaine should be legal and prostitution leads to happiness? — Leontiskos

Curious, I never said either of those two things.

Son: Having sex with prostitutes whenever I please gives me great pleasure.
Father: But what about happiness? Will it make you happy? — Leontiskos

Son: I think so. Certainly happier than you in your passive-aggressive and destructive marriage. :wink:

I think the empirical experience of inflicted acute pain, physical or emotional, does an effective job of locating the position and boundaries of the self — ucarr

It teaches us about pain. But this is a very narrow band of experience and doesn't go anywhere near notions of who we are. For instance - could the self a part of the 'great mind' or will, as per Schopenhauer or Kastrup? Are we all dissociated alters of each other? How would we tell?

This is self-undermining: if we assume there are objective goods but that, according to you, we cannot parse them properly, then we would be incapable of having an ‘ongoing conversation’ where we ‘scrutinize our actions’ objectively or intersubjectively. All it would be then, is baseless inter-subjective agreement; which is nothing but a moral anti-realist theory which should be disregarded immediately. — Bob Ross

No. I don't think you are following. I don't accept there are objective goods (your term). Society engages in an ongoing conversation about a 'code of conduct' and who counts as a citizen - this evolves and is subject to changes over time. Hence gay people are now citizens (in the West), whereas some years ago they were criminals. And who knows where this conversation will go under Trump. In other countries, gay people may still be killed. Humans determine notions of right and wrong pragmatically, based on evolving values,

ideals and situations. And the journey isn't one way, ideas like justice or fairness are constantly in flux.

Eudaimonia is not identical to the english word ‘happiness’. In english, it can refer vaguely to both superficial, hedonic happiness and the deeper, eudaimonic happiness. Aristotle simply says that the best is eudaimonia, which is ‘soul-living-well’, and everyone wants this that are healthy and sane merely in virtue of being an living being. If you don’t want to live well, ceteris paribus, then something’s wrong with you. — Bob Ross

Happiness will do. Eudaemonia is just one construct and to me it seems tied to an ancient, culturally specific framework of virtues and reason, which may or may not be of use today. I personally don't find this helpful.

Reality boils down to the self/other binary. It is the essential platform supporting all empirical experience and abstract thought. — ucarr

I'm not sure how accurate this is. It sounds like dualistic thinking and so, I imagine, Eastern traditions might challenge this model. When I think of 'self' - I don't consider this to be one discreet thing or even a knowable thing and I am uncertain what parts of the self are entirely me or not. I wonder if the idea of this/that is more of a convenient shorthand with limitations and gaps.

Technology is the 'stomping grounds' of youth, and lesser the high-school, place of worship, place of play, or the work-space. What do you think this means for the way we conceptualize ourselves as part of a greater whole? — kudos

I know quite a few younger people. I don't see a lot of difference between their understanding of the world and mine. Many young people are not significantly interested in technology. From what I've seen, the 50-65 year-olds seem more interested in social media.

Your idea that the prohibition of cocaine has nothing to do with the pleasure cocaine provides is what is implausible. — Leontiskos

I didn't address the prohibition of cocaine, I addressed the pleasure it provides and the notion of pleasure itself. In the US there used to be prohibition of alcohol too. Not any more. Presumably alcohol hasn't changed, while social policy has. Prohibition is irrelevant to my argument.

Let's move away from substances to take the excitement out of this idea.

My point is that it's the action we judge, not the pleasure or satisfaction derived from it. I would hold that the pleasure experienced by a person who collects stolen artworks is likely identical to the pleasure experienced by one who buys art through Sotheby's. The issue at stake is should they derive pleasure from a crime? — Tom Storm

For example, why do we prohibit cocaine as a society? Because it is a base pleasure that deprives individuals and groups of deeper fulfillment. — Leontiskos

There’s nothing inherently wrong with the pleasure cocaine can provide. Many people I've known use it a few times a year with great satisfaction and wellbeing. Addiction to coke however is a problem. But so is an addiction to hard work. So is an addition to alcohol, which can also be used responsibly, with great happiness and pleasure.

Actually the idea that some pleasures are intense but empty strikes me as a unanimous idea in both ethics and psychology. — Leontiskos

My point is that it's the action we judge, not the pleasure derived from it. I would hold that the pleasure experienced by a person who collects stolen artworks is likely identical to the pleasure experienced by one who buys art through Sotheby's. The issue at stake is should they derive pleasure from a crime? Not whether the feeling of pleasure arrived at is of a qualitative differnce. I am not convinced by the idea of an 'empty' pleasures.

Exactly. Aristotle doesn’t call this kind of cheating happiness happiness at all; because the only way one becomes truly fulfilled in life, with the happiness which is deep, is by earning it. Like I noted before, by “worthiness of happiness”, you are necessarily using the term “happiness” to refer to this cheap dopamine kind of happiness and not what Aristotle means by happiness. — Bob Ross

Whenever I hear this argument, I find it underwhelming. Parsing happiness into "the right kind" and "the wrong kind" seems both futile and subjective. How can we demonstrate that so-called low happiness (the version Aristotle might disapprove of in our interpretation of him) is qualitatively different? We can’t, not really. Instead, we’re forced to return to behavior and evaluate it, not by the happiness or flourishing it supposedly provides, but by the act itself—which introduces a whole new set of problems.

Aristotle himself supported slavery and likely believed it contributed to the "right kind" of happiness/flourishing. This highlights the issue with attempting to parse happiness in such terms.

Probably better to just accept that humans act, and whether those actions are good or bad always depends on a contingent context—shaped by culture, language, and experience. The best we can do is reach an intersubjective agreement on morality and continuously scrutinize our actions to understand where our morality might lead us in an ongoing conversation.

I guess there has to be a consensus on what a primary relevant source is, right? — javi2541997

I can't see this as being hard, it refers to a work by the thinker themselves, not by someone interpreting it. Thus; Plato's Republic; Rorty's Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

Do we now have to celebrate Elon Musk and the other tech gurus that are insanely rich? — ssu

Cool. Totalitarian Tech Bro Cocksucker Day: January 6.

Consciousness is surely the subjective experience of physical things. But the physical things don't hint at the subjective experience. Something is happening in addition to the physical things. — Patterner

This frame probably has special appeal to those who are idealists or religiously inclined.

Neither is the fact that we've only found physical things with our physical sciences. — Patterner

Well, some might go as far as to call that a clue. But for me the idea that everything is waves when understood from a particular perspective seems a fun notion. When will waves end up being something even more elusive?

, they're described as the excitations of fields, and the nature of fields is far from obvious. — Wayfarer

Indeed that’s the current model. Will we ever finish arriving at tentative theories? Theories that to some extent peg out a version of reality and allow us to make predictions, until the next one comes along?

Everyone I've read who believes physicalism is the answer says we just need to wait until the physicalist answer is figured out. But that's not evidence that physicalism holds the answer. — Patterner

Yep, I get it. I'm not sure we have coherent explanation of the material or the immaterial, whatever that could be. I believe both are held up by a scaffolding of biases. I don't have enough expertise to commit any particular account of subjective experince and recognize that the experts don't really know yet either. Can I do a Chomsky and be a Mysterian? I find it enjoyably ironic that it might be the case that we lack cognitive ability to determine why we have cognitive abilities.

Interesting. Do you think we can demonstrate that feelings are not the product of physical events?

I haven't spoken with ChatGPT in more than a year. But back then, it was making mistakes. I pointed out factual errors occasionally, and it apologized, saying I was correc — Patterner

Ditto. It seems to confabulate.

Maybe I am missing something, that is why I am here asking? — Atrox

Yes. And if you have to ask, it's likely no one will be able to assist you in understanding. You either get it or you don't.

I consider kindness to be one of the most important qualities I value in both individuals and organizations. Not that I always get there myself. However, language is inherently imprecise and open to interpretation. When I say I prefer non-judgment, compassion, and empathy, that's essentially what I mean by kindness. It's all too easy to judge, criticize, and deepen the divide between people. Of course, this perspective can be scrutinized or criticized in ways that miss the point, but such an approach would be an unkind one.

Some suggestions for days to celebrate with harmonious intention are: Humanity Day, Inclusive Society Day, Scientific Discoveries Day, Technological Advances Day, World Peace Day, Hunger Eradication Day, and Equal Opportunities Day.

What else do you suggest? — Alonsoaceves

We already have an International Day of Peace - Sept 21 and look where that has gotten us. :wink:

My personal view is that celebratory days are probably vapid. In my own personal life I don't usually celebrate birthdays or anniversaries and do not consider dates to have any magical significance. I understand the urge some have to memorialize events (such as wars) they have a connection to, but that isn't for me. We also seem to be living in an era where every second day is set aside for some banal celebration, a pseudo event, which to me feel tokenistic and superfluous. Tomorrow, for instance, is International Mountain Day...

As to the broader question of what unites humanity and what role conflict pays, that's a vast quesion I have no substantive answers for. I am in favor of having a military force. I'm not in favor of invading other lands. It's a complex multidimensional question and I have no expertise in geopolitics.

Thanks.

Don’t you see in your own practice the handing down from one generation to the next patterns of abusiveness that result from the perpetuation through multiple generations of a failure to make sense of the others perspective?
6m — Joshs

Totally agree. I am frequently in trouble for trying to remove blame and judgement from worker discourse.

Rather than exploring alternative ways of understanding the actions of others, we blame them for our failure to comprehend. Much of traditional ethics is hostile in this way, blaming the intent, character, or will of others when they fail to meet the standards we have set for them based on our criteria. The more effective , but far more difficult, approach is to experiment with fresh ways of interpreting the motives of others. — Joshs

Fair enough. How would this work in practice, in the context of a man who perpetuates domestic abuse? How might such an approach bear useful results? The conventional view might be that the violent perpetrator who assaults his partner, is doing so to exert his power and control of them by using fear and force.

Perhaps that’s a precursor for what was to become the ding an sich of Kant (I don’t know if that’s a recognised theory.) The many arguments I’m having about idealism revolve around the idea that in the absence of the order which an observing mind brings to bear, nothing exists as such. Not that it doesn’t exist, but there is no ‘it’ which either exists or doesn’t exist. The delineation of forms and the differentiation of things and features one from another is what ‘existence’ means, it is the order that ‘brings things into existence’, so to speak. (For which the ‘observer problem’ is an exact analogy.) — Wayfarer

This is a helpful formulation of the idea.

We live in a society carved up into myriad communities united by their own systems of intelligibility. The fact that we are all able to share the roads together and communicate in public spaces on the basis of general and superficially shared understandings masks the extent to which our worlds only partially link up. When we fail to see this we force the ethical into the position of subjective will. The other falls short of our ethical standards due to a failing of ‘integrity’, a ‘character flaw’ , dishonesty, evil intent , selfishness, etc. In doing so, we erase the difference between their world and ours, and turn our failure to fathom into their moral failure. — Joshs

I find this particularly interesting. Does it follow from this frame that no one is ever knowingly dishonest or has evil intent and that the matter can always be understood as arising from incommensurate perspectives?

:lol:

Discussing the limits of language and logic is a legitimate subject in philosophy, and I don't agree at all that ' the transcendent can mean nothing to us'. — Wayfarer

Maybe, but it is far from demonstrable that you're correct on this. How would we know? (That's rhetorical, not needing a lengthy explanation of metaphysical answers.) view here seems entirely plausible and legitimate. What we simply have here is a disagreement about how the world may be. You both are aware of the same accounts, but your inferences take you to different conclusions. I tend to favour skepticism myself.

I know this. Still a smear, right?

Presumably a smear? :wink:

Insofar as it is mind-created it is delusory. Mysticism proper is seeing through what the mind creates. — Wayfarer

Yes, I am familiar with the belief and I was involved in these sorts of pursuits many years ago.

The mystical cannot yield discursive knowledge, it just gives us a kind of special poetry. It can be life-transforming, and that transformation does not consist in knowing anything, but in feeling a very different way. — Janus

That's an interesting way of putting it. I guess something similar to Wittgenstein's, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

‘Accessing reality’ sounds like something you need a swipe card for. — Wayfarer

Maybe that's were we've been going wrong. It might even be an app...

‘all I know is that I know nothing’, — Wayfarer

I'm pretty satisfied not knowing.

How do you get outside the human conception of reality to see the world as it truly is? That is the probably the question underlying all philosophy.
— Wayfarer

I don't think that is the most important question in philosophy by any stretch because the simple answer is "You can't get outside of human conceptions of reality". (There are human conceptions of reality, not just one conception). — Janus

Yes. It strikes me that much of the argument provided by can also be used to support a robust skepticism of the transcendent. Since we can't access reality, how do we know there is a reality beyond the reality we know? Perhaps it's perspectives all the way down. :wink: English philosopher Hilary Lawson makes similar arguments to Wayfarer, but is led to skepticism rather than mysticism - mysticism being just one more mind created reality and futile project to arrive at Truth.

It would be interesting to hear Harris respond to your concerns. I haven't followed his project closely enough to consider what his deficits might be. As a moral nihilist, I retain some interest in the subject, but only a mild one.

I'm actually writing a paper on this because, from my experience in government, it seems that something like Harris view is dominant amongst policymakers and economists (less the religious bigotry, which most don't share). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I've worked with a lot with policy makers in this country. Pretty much no one believes in god and their atheism is so ubiquitous in this largely secular country, that most don't even know what religion or theism refers to, except as the colourful beliefs held by immigrants. :wink:

In conclusion, having both subjectivity and objectivity co-exist in the same world creates a logical contradiction. — bizso09

Can you explain the contradiction? Isn't the subjective and the objective simply a description of the same reality seen from a different perspective? But if they are in opposition or some type of contradiction isn't it that case that opposites coexist and that they help to define and identify the other - no pleasure without pain, no good without bad, no wellness without sickness? It might be said, of course, that everything is ultimately subjective and that agreement or what we call objectivity is simply inter-subjectivity - a truth we manufacture together.

Nobody is obligated to help others, though it may be a good endeavour. — Barkon

This is why I tend to think of helping others being a potential example of good. Good often comes at a price. Good may have a personal cost. Good may be difficult and painful. Hence the association of self-sacrifice with good. If good is simply what pleases you, you might be a con-artist and thief.

Aristotle's example of what is sought for its own sake is eudaimonia—roughly "happiness," "well-being," or "flourishing." This appears to be a strong candidate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe. We're still left with the vexed act of interpreting what constitutes 'flourishing' and who gets to be a citizen in that model. For instance, does it fully include women? (Not looking for an answer to this)

On this one, I think I prefer Sam Harris' simplistic adaptation of Aristotle, which puts 'wellbeing' at the centre. Subject to the similar definitional and operational problems.

Why prefer some forms of social order over others? Presumably because we think they are truly better. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, in my case because they please me and comport with my values. And I like predictability. Morality can greatly assist us to make plans.

it would be quite another to say that it is "intersubjective agreements all the way down," or not explicable in terms of anything other than such agreements. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can we demonstrate that this is not the case? Circular reasoning like this seems unavoidable throughout human experience. After all we use logic to prove logic. Isn't the very idea that - an action is morally right if it maximizes flourishing because maximising flourishing is what defines morality - circular?

Some might say that humans, as social, tribal animals have evolved behaviours (norms, codes) which benefit groups. Don't fuck your sister's husband, don't steal stuff and don't kill - would make sense in terms of the continuity and thriving of the tribe. But there are some tribes that don't have the injunction against stealing because there's no private property in their culture.

Does goodness change, or beliefs about what is good? Beliefs about everything vary by epoch, culture, and individual... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I get it - the usual arguments against relativism, which I have put up myself elsewhere. I may start a thread on nuanced relativism. I'm not necessarily a proponent, just an admirer...

I am not sure 'good' means much without context and milieu. I'm not sure this is a resolvable matter. Relativism doesn't have to argue that all moral claims are equal, just that their status depends on the given social, cultural and personal context.

Likewise, the age of the universe is normally not taken to change when beliefs about this fact do, and this holds even though the specific measure of time we generally use to present and understand "the age of the universe"—the year—is a social construct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This may be true about the universe's real age - if age even has meaning at this level. But I think the idea that the universe is the product of a singularity at a particular time is an intersubjective agreement held by certain parts of the scientific community. Is it not possible that one of those fabled paradigm shifts (so 20th century) might uncover a different cause and timeframe sometime?

But the age of the universe and how viruses work are surely of a different category to whether something is inherently good or bad.