From what I gather, the words attributed to Jesus from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion as documented across the four gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John are the only extant records. — ThinkOfOne

Much of the other stuff based on Mark, which is still decades after the supposed events. The gospels are anonymous documents which are copies of translations of copies of translations etc.

The first task here is to demonstrate that the Jesus story in the books comports with an actual life and words of a real person/god. Until anyone can do this, they are, it seems to me, just doing book reports.

However I am curious about those who doubt the realness of the material world yet accept the realness of other people's consciousness, given that the only interactions we have with other people's consciousnesses is via the material world. I see, hear, touch, etc other people - all material interactions. If I doubt those material interactions are real, how can I infer other people are real? — PhilosophyRunner

No. The idea is that physical sensation or matter is how consciousness seems when viewed from a particular perspective - it's like a dashboard or illusion simulated by mind. To more fully understand idealism and the arguments it would help to read some Bernado Kastrup or Donald Hoffman. They present the arguments in a more accessible way and with some humor. They specifically address the familiar and worn, 'I refute it thus!' of Samuel Johnson kicking a rock in response to Bishop Berkeley.

Perhaps the most prevalent theme in the gospel preached by Jesus was the importance of HIS words. The words He spoke while He preached His gospel. Not the words of the Bible on the whole. Not the words of Paul. HIS words. — ThinkOfOne

It's kind of ironic because as far as we know there are no records of Yeshua ben Yosef words or whoever the first century figure/s was who may have inspired the legends. So how much should we care about this?

An idealist might argue that since they cannot be certain of the existence of others, they owe others no regard. — Banno

In steel-manning most idealism I've encountered, it seems to me the argument is that all human beings exist - in as much as they are separate instantiations of consciousness - and the world as it appears must also be taken seriously as a misadventure can still 'end' this expression of consciousness. So functionally there is not much difference in how one would go about conducting one's life - the difference is down to the metaphysics.

the fact is that solipsism as a theory is irrefutable. — GLEN willows

Indeed. And I think it is highly unlikely that I wrote all those Beethoven symphonies and George Elliot novels. Not to mention Dan Brown... :vomit:

Nice.

And again, this seems to be a failure to differentiate between what is true and what is believed. Things like three-tonne boulders do not care what one believes. What is true is quite independent of what one believes. — Banno

I don't disagree. But if idealism is true then surely this too is independent of what one believes about it? I am not an idealist - as you probably know. The three-tonne boulder may just be a simulation, but it can destroy me as I am a part of the simulation too. I think that's the idea. Now your question might be - so if it is indistinguishable from physicalism, what does it matter? Or you might just call BS?

It has always struck me that when I read a translation, I'm reading something new, not the original. It seems like translating a novel, story, or poem would be harder than writing it in the first place. — T Clark

How does this play out in your appreciation of the Tao Te Ching?

I tend to agree when reading. Interestingly, when translating, I feel a sort of responsibility to get as close to the poem as I possibly can — Dawnstorm

The issue is that this is based upon personal perspectives and choices about language, intent, mood, culture. Translators do not always agree on how things should be reconstructed and all they can point to is our personal preferences and justification.

Idealism is true ... to an extent! You really don't want to doubt the external reality of a a 3-ton boulder rolling down the hill, straight at you. — Agent Smith

But idealism doesn't say there are no risks in what we call the 'physical world'. The physical world is seen as a kid of dashboard of readings which make consciousness apprehensible (al la Donald Hoffman). In this view of idealism, you may still be harmed by things which present as physical to our dashboard system. They just aren't what we think they are.

Wayfarer left TPF three months ago.

If I continued to nihilistically lack compassion and empathy, reject your rational appeals as nothing, respond without sentence structure, grammar, punctuation and spelling (these conventions representing nothing), and descend the conversation into meaningless flaming I would soon provoke moderation — introbert

This seems like a reductio ad absurdum argument. What citation can you provide to substantiate that this is how nihilism functions in practice? I think most forms of hard nihilism are more likely to end up as silence via apathy.

This is really what motivates this post: the potential for totalitarian and authoritarian controls of social codes. — introbert

We already have 'controls of social codes.' Some of these I am in favor of. One view of morality is that it is created to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve a preferred form of order. Anyway we've probably exhausted this one. Take care.

The translation is quite a nice poem in its own right, and I'd recognise the original in it, but I get different things out of both of them. — Dawnstorm

I never expect translations to be the same as an original. They are their own thing.

Interestingly, the language felt... wrong? — Dawnstorm

It felt right to the translator but it is clearly a contemporisation.

Nice. Yeah, I see it as bittersweet. There is something grand yet bleak about the end of the third stanza, almost a heroic loneliness. It's always interesting how a poem with so few words can open up a universe of associations in one's brain.

'm not sure if you are being deliberately contrarian, feigning ignorance or are just a little naive, but nihilism is tied with a number of abnormal psychologies and is part of the profile for sociopathy. — introbert

No need to be rude. We have a difference of opinion and suggesting mine is naïve/ignorant/contrarian because it doesn't match yours is not manners, right? Perhaps we won't find common ground then since I have already proposed that nihilism has various expressions and does not necessarily lead to anti-social behaviour. Can you demonstrate that nihilism invariably leads to anti-social (sociopathic) behaviour? I suspect that some forms of nihilism are just a type of anti-foundationalism. Many philosophers get along just fine thinking this way.

I enjoyed his veil-of-ignorance.

I don't think it incoherent so much as incomplete. After all, why not do what is useful? But deciding what is useful presupposes other stuff. Choosing a screw driver over a hammer assumes a great deal about the task in hand. — Banno

That is a key question for me. In this view I often query 'useful' to what end? I can choose a screwdriver to usefully repair something. But what if the thing I am repairing is a gas chamber at Treblinka?

Nihilists consider the things people take very seriously as nothing. The moral argument against nihilism, if there's only one, is simply that it does not recognize the cornerstones and pillars of society. — introbert

Thanks for clarifying. I hear you now. There are hard and soft nihilists. A hard nihilist might just choose suicide if the nihilism brings with it despair. My take of nihilism is that it is a place to start. It doesn't mean that others are treated badly or that all society offers is flouted. We are just aware of the arbitrary nature of meaning - there is nothing by way of foundation. Whatever meaning we find is ours to create. Similarly to atheism, a lack of belief in god does not promote evil or no morality or no social contract, it simply redefines how we understand the good and broadens our range. But then I'd argue that even with an organised belief system we are in the same boat anyway - all morality and social systems are constructed from shared meaning and are often, when unpacked, incoherent and hypocritical. All that's holding things together is power, the law, goodwill, fear and convention.

Now we might move on to the limitations of pragmatism... :wink: — Banno

Is there a coherent account of pragmatism?

Not sure what you are arguing but if you are saying that nihilism may be difficult for some people, you're right.

If the nihilist chooses not to kill himself and embrace the meaninglessness it does not end there, the nihilist at the very least becomes anomic and violates societal values. — introbert

What are societal values? I didn't think there were any - just an interpretive legal system and assorted sub cultures with their own values. Are you saying the nihilist is up against mainstream culture and its various incoherent set of values?

The nihilist reifies the moral argument against him into social institutions that are against lawlessness, intemperance, infidelity, immorality, antiestablishment, anarchism, anti-work etc. — introbert

Can you explain what you mean in simple language? What moral argument is there against nihilism?

The nihilst is all alone pushing for nothing while the opposite of nothing pushes back. — introbert

Perhaps that is the boulder rolling back down the hill, right?

The opposite of nothing is unbeatable by nothing, but as the history of nihilism proceeds there are other writers who have a little more sense to turn their nihilism against the moral institutions that the nihilist will come up against — introbert

I can't follow what you mean. Can you try it again is simple language? Are you talking about some nihilists creating or forging a set of new values, a la Nietzsche?

Surely the nihilist by definition does not accept moral values as being foundational. Morality is something the nihilist has to choose for themselves, in the absence of god/s or some kid of transcendent notion of The Good.

Pallet cleanser? I have a thing for bittersweet.

Day in Autum

BY RAINER MARIA RILKE
TRANSLATED BY MARY KINZIE

After the summer's yield, Lord, it is time
to let your shadow lengthen on the sundials
and in the pastures let the rough winds fly.

As for the final fruits, coax them to roundness.
Direct on them two days of warmer light
to hale them golden toward their term, and harry
the last few drops of sweetness through the wine.

Whoever's homeless now, will build no shelter;
who lives alone will live indefinitely so,
waking up to read a little, draft long letters,
and, along the city's avenues,
fitfully wander, when the wild leaves loosen.

I don't intend any of this as a criticism of you. — T Clark

Didn't take it that way. I first encountered this poem 30 years ago and it enlarged my thinking. I am not an anti-natalist or a pessimist. I'm not even a Larkin fan. But I think it's vivid and it encapsulates a way of thinking.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.

Gives me chills. I think of Larkin as a poor, sad bastard.

I see it retains its power to provoke and rankle.

Something for our antinatalist/pessimist friends.

This Be The Verse

By Philip Larkin

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

Basically, I'm wondering if there is a disconnect here considering that a merit-based immigration policy also functions similarly to eugenics: — Xanatos

There's some thematic overlap but I think they are different. In the first instance we are (ethics aside) selecting people to add value to society (subject to certain values) and in the second we are deciding what qualifies as a human being. The first is a pragmatic response to situational exigencies, the second is part of a totalizing metanarrative about the nature of the human.

:up:

Nicely put.

I think Camus still makes sense. I don't pretend to understand every nuance, but the notion that humans toil impotently to create or find meaning in a meaningless world remains apropos. For myself I've never quite determined whether rolling that big rock up the hill should be an act of defiance or a form of joyful resignation. Are we engaged in recursive grunt work, or a form of ritual? Is this grind and toil an act of self-creation or of self-sabotage? It's all of this and I guess that's why it's absurd.

Camus' writing often resonates and soars.

“I can negate everything of that part of me that lives on vague nostalgias, except this desire for unity, this longing to solve, this need for clarity and cohesion. I can refute everything in this world surrounding me that offends or enraptures me, except this chaos, this sovereign chance and this divine equivalence which springs from anarchy. I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I do not know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms.”

- Albert Camus The Myth of Sisyphus

So, I am asking about how much is certain and uncertain in life experiences and knowledge? What is the tension between the certain and uncertain in philosophical understanding? — Jack Cummins

I don't look for certainty and place this notion alongside 'absolute truth' as a mythic construction. I generally look for reasonable confidence in my beliefs, based on the best I can do with what knowledge or experiences I have access to. Certainty, like truth, is not an immutable property but a convenient abstraction which seems to look different in different situations.

“The only reality I can possibly know is the world as I perceive it at this moment. The only reality you can possibly know is the world as you see it at this moment. And the only certainty is that those perceived realities are different."

- Carl Rogers

Setting aside Roger's metaphysical assumptions about perception - I'm happy to take 'perceive' and 'see' as experience. :wink:

I'm not trying to be a smart arse, it's a genuine question - can you provide an example of something in life that has been illuminated or enhanced by the type of philosophical thinking I think you are referring to?

It isn't an abstraction at all, is it? — Pantagruel

Not really. I don't see my life that way.

It's easy enough to talk about concrete goals, but the whole issue is to what extent are idealizations susceptible of concrete realization? — Pantagruel

Not sure it is that easy as you have been unable to do it so far. :wink: I'm not talking about concrete goals. Just goals. Concrete is to goals what absolute is to truth.

I'll give you an example.

A very helpful idea I encountered around 30 years ago was from Albert Ellis, a psychologist, influenced by the Stoics. He said - "You have considerable power to construct self-helping thoughts, feelings and actions as well as to construct self-defeating behaviors. You have the ability, if you use it, to choose healthy instead of unhealthy thinking, feeling and acting.” That idea changed how I deal with others and how I deal with any information I come upon.

Thanks. Always good to hear from people about practical experiences. I've been reading the Tao Te Ching thanks to you and although I don't know what it all means, I feel like I sometimes have an intuitive feel for it. I have the Ursula Le Guin version, but I do have access to the Mitchell. There is something... captivating about it.

When someone says something like philosophy is -

about conceptualizing a goal-state — Pantagruel

I am curious how that actually looks outside of abstractions.

:up:

Sorry, not trying to be a pain in the arse, but I'm no clearer. What is conceptualizing a goal-state? Outside of an abstract, can you provide an example of how this might work in 'real life'? :smile:

Interesting. Thanks. I kind of missed any exposure to science too, so there's no hope for me.

I feel like by building up more and more contexts of understanding, new types of possibilities will open up. — Pantagruel

And have they opened up? Can you share an example?

read a lot of non-contemporary philosophy, and a lot of out outlier material, Mannheim, Scheler, Laszlo. I also frequently revisit seminal and great works, Whitehead, Bergson, Fichte, Aristotle, Marx. I try to cover as much ground as humanly possible, philosophy, science, anthropology, sociology, political theory. To what end? — Pantagruel

As someone who is here mainly to see what he may have missed in not reading philosophy what do you think you have gained from all this reading? What were or are you looking for? If it's awareness... what does that mean in practice?

There are other questions you might tackle involving qualities or abstractions related to owning objects, for instance, status/luxury or how much is enough. — David S

Indeed and that's different question. So is the question, why are some people still dissatisfied when wealthy?

Owning stuff is central to the human experience in most cultures. Given that society often judges people by what they own, it is sometimes hard to track if it is the object itself or some external validation which is the true prize.

Not hard to see how this might be distorted by psychological issues (hoarding) or by wealth (luxury goods) or by class and status. I knew a man who owned many high end prestige cars - probably about 10 at a time. It was pretty obvious from knowing him that this was not about owning cars. It was grief and self-esteem. But I think explanations for how people relate to material possessions are as myriad as those possessions themselves.

:up:

Feynman, if I remember correctly, reportedly said "if you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don;t understand quantum mechanics" which I take to mean that no one understands what is really going on, but obviously not that no one understands the math. — Janus

Indeed, but I'll venture there are many ways of not understanding something - ignorance is not all equal, take Socrates.

the question as to whether mathematics has any metaphysical implications, and that question remains controversial to this day, with mathematicians and philosophers on both sides of the debate. I don't think it is a question that mathematics expertise can help to answer. — Janus

Don't disagree and you're probably right, but I think ignorance can come in theorised and untheorized forms and this is likely to make a significant difference in the steps you take in overcoming that ignorance.

The idea however that owning “stuff” leads to satisfaction is probably undeniable. I just find it curious why as much as I do enjoy the possessions I have it’ surprisingly difficult to explain simply why. — David S

It makes perfect sense to me. As physical beings our survival, comfort and enjoyment of life is enabled or augmented by physical objects like warm clothing, a home, transportation, land, furniture, tools, art, whatever. Owning those objects provides a predictability to our comfort and control over our environment. Satisfaction.

There are other questions you might tackle involving qualities or abstractions related to owning objects, for instance, status/luxury or how much is enough.

I would point out that the question as to whether QM has metaphysical interpretations is not itself a scientific question, which means that no matter how great your scientific knowledge, that will not put you in any better position to answer it. — Janus

Interesting. Is this right? Could we not say that the physicist Sean Carroll (for instance) is in a better position to answer whether QM has metaphysical implications, primarily because he actually understands QM, which is surely the first and most necessary prerequisite to answering this question? And presumably he would see far more clearly than others what the actual gaps in QM are likely to be, where the science 'runs out' and the point where the metaphysical interpretations can begin.

Why would owning things not satisfy?