I think your version of ‘conservatives’ tends to be neoliberal folk who follow that cultural wrecking ball, Rupert Murdoch. But no doubt some neoliberals share some conservative values mainly on social issues.

Nothing is hard and fast.

I do not think the political right is identical to the Conservative position. What counts as Right wing? If it’s authoritarianism, suppression of opposing voices and minority groups then are there not ‘Leftist’ groups who do all this?

Maybe categories like this are approximate positions only.

It's a good question and a big subject because many people who say they are conservative are actually neo-liberals, who would sell off anything and take down any tradition for a buck. Although they might hold to some conservative social positions on the role of women or religion.

A conservative is someone who opposes radical change and what they call 'social engineering' and works to maintain institutions and traditions and cultural artefacts (buildings, museums, landscapes, the arts, the rule of law, royalty - in Britain and the Commonwealth). Conservatives often wish to preserve anachronistic social systems and privileges, they tend to believe in high culture and are suspicious of new ideas, technology and immigration. Roger Scruton, the philosopher, was a conservative and wrote a great deal about it.

“Conservatism starts from a sentiment that all mature people can readily share: the sentiment that good things are easily destroyed, but not easily created. This is especially true of the good things that come to us as collective assets: peace, freedom, law, civility, public spirit, the security of property and family life, in all of which we depend on the cooperation of others while having no means singlehandedly to obtain it. In respect of such things, the work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation slow, laborious and dull. That is one of the lessons of the twentieth century. It is also one reason why conservatives suffer such a disadvantage when it comes to public opinion. Their position is true but boring, that of their opponents exciting but false.”
― Roger Scruton, How to Be a Conservative

The schools of enactivism and embodied cognition draw a great deal from phenomenology. (All these sources I've only become familiar with through the Forums in the last decade or so and am trying to get up to speed on.) — Wayfarer

Indeed. I've only been reading this stuff for the past 2 years. I find this material fascinating.

Given the amounts of hatred we also see in sport, the arts, university departments, businesses, media, etc, etc, would it not be the case that tribalism is the main issue, along with the human predisposition toward dualistic thinking? I don't see how we can do without politics. The fact that many candidates and parties seem to be so shit these days may also be a reflection that the public are not sufficiently engaged in politics and civic discourse to help elevate the enterprise.

Much hatred in politics seems to me to be confected hatred, generated by millionaire commentators ensconced in corporate media who have an interest in fueling the fires of prejudice and bigotry to enhance ratings and generate cash.

Yeah, I'll get pilloried for being too direct. Philosophy is hard. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, I might be wrong, yours might be a brilliant and correct approach. But I'm not seeing it. — Banno

Philosophy certainly seems hard to me and no matter what you think you have learned, there are constant set backs. I think your approach is collegial and helpful. It's fascinating to see people getting angry or irritable when there's a disagreement. You like to tackle an argument head on and why not?

Husserl also criticized Descartes for relying on the language of subject and object, which he believed reinforced a dualistic view of the world. — Wayfarer

Which you would expect from someone who has made a set of different assumptions. I'm not clear if Husserl has actually resolved the question of dualism or simply bracketed the matter.

Husserl seems to be saying that the categories of mind and body are an abstraction and that everything is understood as pure experience or transcendental consciousness. Can you clarify? And does this really resolve the question or just push it to one side? I'm not aware of Husserl ever answering the mind body question, he just seems to have it in for Descartes' legacy on Western thought. Would anyone argue that Husserl was a successful monist? It seems to me that what remains is an 'I' who is experiencing consciousness and a body which the 'I' uses to interact with the life world.

If you want to look at the personal/emotional part of my answer, it would only make sense to me if you are a bit personal/emotional as well, as I believe that is in tune with the intentions of the thread. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Thanks for clarifying. I don't think you've answered my questions, but I shan't press the point. In relation to the above - as I said -

Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true. — Tom Storm

I feel that people's imagination can be wrong and they impose a false representation onto someone else. It could be they diminish or exaggerate someone's experiences. — Andrew4Handel

However (in addition to @Banno's point about private language) as I said, we don't need to be too concrete about this. I am comfortable with notion that my pain/experience is similar enough to other people's pain/experience, sufficient for me to generate empathy. That's the point. I'm not saying it is an exact match or qualitative equivalent. It doesn't need to be.

As I said in my last post I think imagining someone else's experience may just be revisiting your own. — Andrew4Handel

You wrote 'may just' but it may not... the point is our own pain is enough to understand that pain is not good, not fun, not desirable and therefore we 'feel' for the other in their pain through our own experience and humanity. We can still retain the notion that everyone is slightly different in their experience yet hold enough commonality to share the experience of being human.

Cool. Thank you.

Do you have a few sentences to offer to summarise what clinched it for you?

Think of science as a map. I want to go from A to B. There are rivers, mountains, and private property between A and B. — Art48

Sure, I think that is the Sam Harris position in The Moral Landscape.

But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves. — Art48

Indeed - a divine command theory is a morality segregated from what is right and wrong. Socrates licked this one in Euthyphro.

Empathy is a controversial issue because it usually involves the alleged ability to imagine someone else's experiences.
I think this may be possible in a few cases but:

Can you imagine having HIV or Cancer if you don't have them? Can you imagine being a serial killer? Can you imagine being the opposite sex? Being (pregnant/menstruating). Being gay/straight/bi? — Andrew4Handel

I think it is possible to get too concrete with these sorts of matters. To 'imagine' doesn't require 100% match of another's experience. That's why it is called imagination. For instance, I have my own experiences to draw upon that may be used to imagine how others are experiencing things. I have been very sick - I can imagine the debilitations and complexities in having cancer or any illness (not to mention that I have watched many people die).

Serial killer? I can imagine being persecuted by obsessions and having the need to release myself through predatory behaviour.

Being gay? Is it difference to being straight? Love and sex are pretty much interchangeable. The experience of discrimination I can imagine, having experienced discrimination before.

Again, I don't think it is necessary to map onto another's experience 100% in order to imagine another's situation in a useful way to generate empathy. We have access to glimmers of another's experience.

The Roman poet Terence made the point that, 'I consider nothing that is human alien to me.' I think this resonates with many but perhaps not all of us.

I found that essay very moving.

:lol:

I agree. Having been in academia for many years I have some criticisms of it, but learned to separate the good from the bad. — Fooloso4

I suspect that much of this must come down to judgement which gets refined as one learns, right? Do you feel you can summarise any basic principles you have identified along the way, that supports you in the process of winnowing the wheat from the caff (philosophically speaking)?

I don't see this as a problem. The act of seeing other people as people requires we make a metaphorical connection with them. We intuitively, empathetically recognize they experience the world in ways very similar to the way we do. Without that recognition we could not even communicate. So, is my headache the same as theirs? Are my memories, beliefs, desires, thought, and dreams the same? Maybe. We can ask questions to figure that out. — T Clark

Nice. Totally agree.

I don't see why we can't just go back to saying that rocks are real. Doing so sorta cuts to the chase, if you see what I mean. — Banno

Yes. It reminds me of the point made by some that matter isn't 'real' and that all we see and experience is excitations in quantum fields. For a human being this doesn't really get us out of the world of rocks and bad pop music....

Cool. That drills down into it a bit better for me. Appreciate this.

But also, rocks are just PDA loopy thingies. — Banno

So rocks are how the loopys appear for us so we can deal with them in our Darwinist survival world...

What then? Surely he's heading somewhere to sell us something more? :wink:

It's not that "truth" has a compromised status. That would be a backward way of looking at things. We can still hold truth up to the highest standards. We simply need to recognize that empirical data and science are insufficient for truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sorry mate, I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I made a small point about Hoffman's account of empiricism, not truth as such. But let's move on. :wink:

:up:

I don't know if Hoffman can have any corresponding ontology of what the real connections are between perceiving subjects and objects that correspond to his metaphor of creatures manipulating icons. He says it's not real - compared to what? — Wayfarer

Yes. That's a good point.

'conscious agents' are not necessarily human beings, but might be completely unknown to us. — Wayfarer

Hmm, I wonder... aliens? Interdimensional beings? Dissociated alters of a universal mind? Poker playing dogs?

I can't speak to original sin or if that's a real thing. But biology is just how energy changes forms. If a deity is limited you can't really be sure what options they have. I'm not even going to assume this god created us or started anything from scratch. — TiredThinker

Well, there are as many ways of regarding god/s as there are gods. So I'm not sure we can really say anything meaningful or coherent.

Do scientists have a gulf between theory and practice? — Art48

No idea. Probably. Science in theory is meant to help and enhance humanity and yet scientists everywhere are engaged in activities of death and destruction. From denying climate change to building and designing chemical and nuclear weapons. Is scientism another gulf between theory and practice. A case of theory overreach at the expense of truth?

Religion claims possession of the Truth (with a capital "T") but I'd say science respects the truth much more than religion. — Art48

I hear you, but some here might call that scientism. In what sense does science deal in truths? Religion deals in different truths - foundational meaning and morality. Science, as we all learn, can't give us an ought from an is.

I've been watching some videos of wildlife in Africa. An even bigger question for me is what kind of god/s design a world where suffering and blood lubricates everything in the world of animals and insects? They eat each other alive. They regularly die slowly and miserably and it's called survival. And animals are not part of original sin or a case of free choice unleashing evil. They were 'designed' to be predator and prey. They have no other options. Only a sick mind would conceive of such a thing.

:cool: :rofl:

The first thing that comes to mind would be that we or other conscious beings, have the potential to become gods in this world. — Caerulea-Lawrence

What does this mean? How might we become gods? What is your definition of a god in such a case?

When I didn't read the Bible every day, the intensity in my desire to find a quick solution dwindled. Instead, I could feel my sadness, pain, confusion and numbness. And since it was there, real, and actually spoke to me directly, I tried to listen more.
A few years later, as I was walking out from the Student library, I became aware of the wool that had been there, as I felt it evaporate. I could sense the cold, hostile space outside our atmosphere, and I felt alone and vulnerable. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Can you clarify this? The wool evaporated? Are you saying that the wool which had been pulled over your eyes by religion was removed and you saw clearly without religion?

Seems to me you are describing an emotional state, but how useful is this to understanding reality such as it is? Seems to me that confusion and vulnerability or, conversely, feelings of wellbeing and invulnerability are usually tied to beliefs and these beliefs need not be true.

Most Christians say they believe God commands us to love our enemies and forgive seventy times seven. Yet when 9/11 happened, I don't recall any Christian saying we should turn the other cheek. — Art48

And it was Islam, a religion of peace, that flew the planes into the buildings. I don't think any religion honors its tradition all that much. The gulf between theory and practice is one of the things which makes us human.

Learning how to die seems to be like becoming so ripe that one is willing to drop from the tree — green flag

Great line.

Is there not a place for articles like this, and pop philosophy in general?
Are they helpful or do they do more harm than good?
Was my initial reaction just an instance of snobbery, a kind of intellectual elitism?
Can it even be done better than the philosophers and spiritual leaders from which it derives? — Mikie

Some thinking and refection is better than none. I am bombarded by these sorts of articles every week - mainly by HR companies and my own HR and strategy team. Mindfulness comes up a lot, as does stoicism. I have yet to read anything I personally can use. Some of the management team enjoy these pieces, but they are people who do not read much and are not natural thinkers. Is snobbery or elitism always bad?

I recall a quote from Australian art critic Robert Hughes, a man of modernist, old-school inclinations.

“I am completely an elitist in the cultural but emphatically not the social sense. I prefer the good to the bad, the articulate to the mumbling, the aesthetically developed to the merely primitive, and full to partial consciousness. I love the spectacle of skill, whether it's an expert gardener at work or a good carpenter chopping dovetails. I don't think stupid or ill-read people are as good to be with as wise and fully literate ones. I would rather watch a great tennis player than a mediocre one, unless the latter is a friend or a relative

On the other hand, if Jesus is God, then of course his teachings are great and valuable, but we normal, weak, sinful human beings really can’t be faulted for not following such elevated and noble teachings. — Art48

I would think Jesus is even easier to ignore if he's just some eccentric, wandering teacher with an opinion.

Can you think of one religion which hasn't strayed from its original message, where teachings aren't ignored?

What problem are you trying to solve with this thought experiment? Which teachings of Jesus are true and which ones are ignored?

I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48

I have generally held that if Jesus did live at any point (and we know almost nothing about this character) he was a human being who had some myths develop around him, like so many others. It would be a brave person who can identify actual teachings.

But the oblivion one emerged from is the same as one enters on death. And as you didn't suffer before being born, I suspect you will not suffer in death. — Benj96

Indeed. For most of time we were all already dead...

Also injury, disease, and violence. — green flag

Yes!

The position of truth would depend on how you would define "truth". — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure. But my point wasn't about truth as such, it was about the nature and validity of science and empirical data, which surely has a compromised status if human senses are not able to apprehend reality.

If it walks like an idealist, and quacks like an idealist, then..... — Wayfarer

That's what I've been thinking. Do you suppose that perhaps Hoff is trying to avoid being too closely associated with traditional philosophy (idealism) and wants to focus on his scientific & maths credentials to help connect people to his model?

Nice. The twiddly maths lost me when I looked into this some time back.

I'm assuming the interface theory is the computer desktop icon metaphor?

Ok then I totally don't understand what is being argued. I'm not sure how science can lead to truth when Hoff says we are hardwired by evolution to be unable to recognise reality. Maybe at some point someone can set out 7 or 8 dot points summarising the gist of it. :wink:

Your wording is confusing to me. Are you just asking, if there were a god of this world, where there is prodigious suffering and good people also suffer, what qualities would this god have?

No idea.

This is a simple misunderstanding. MUI theory is not idealism. It does not claim that all that exists are conscious perceptions. It claims that our conscious perceptions need not resemble the objective world, whatever its nature is — Donald Hoffman

Ok. Thanks.

Yeah, sorry it's not clearer. So Conscious Realism takes as fundamental some entity - he posits a particular quantum wave in some places - that can "act" in response to some "experience" which brings about a change in the "world" - and notice here he is already making use of intentional language. — Banno

Not your fault. So really Hoff's thesis is as we already gleaned - reality isn't what humans see - there is a reality but it's not apprehendable to humans in its 'actual form'. Is this not a version of Kant's noumena, etc?

Ignoring death--not being afraid of it happening, of our losing life--can look like we are focusing on "life". We are "in the moment" and pursuing "feeling alive"--Derrida refers to this, I believe, as Presence. However, if you ask any psychotherapist they will tell you that we do not fear death so much as we fear life. — Antony Nickles

Nice. Yes I think fearing life is definitely the key problem that I see in my work. But fearing life is actually fearing things like decisions, rejection, responsibility, commitment and consequences, etc.

I've tended to find that most things said about life and death by philosophers and poets leave me cold.

That's very thorough and i appreciate it. I don't really have much chance of knowing if any of this is well argued or not - that's where our comrades who know philosophy and have time to read come in. How is Hoff a realist if he is a type of idealist who agrees 90% with Kastrup. Can you explain how this works?

he PDA loop looks like a formalisation of "response to stimulus", were an experience leads to an action. Is that really all that is involved in consciousness? — Banno

Does this not sound reductive?

The inclusion of "world" worried me at first, it seemed at first Hoffman was assuming the existence of reality. But it appears that what he has in mind here is an iterative process, where "world" is replaced not by space, time and such stuff of our common acquaintance, but with other PDA loops... Not sure what to make of that. — Banno

That sounds confusing.

Thanks. I thought it was referring to having 2 or 3 sock puppets on at once...