The somewhat mawkish Neighbours theme was written by songwriters Jacky Trent and Tony Hatch. They actually wrote one of Scott Walker's greatest songs, Joanna. Oddly enough I was listening to it last night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUSmO1ttMvY

I recall on a thread before someone saying they don't feel comfortable calling themselves a philosopher. — Yohan

I certainly don't call myself a philosopher. It's not a question of 'feeling comfortable' it's a question of accurate reporting. I am here because I am interested to see what I may have missed by not paying much attention to philosophy throughout my life. In my opinion a person is not likely to be a philosopher unless they are doing some original thinking steeped in a deep understanding of key philosophical texts or matters.

Instead of "philosopher" I call myself

freethinker (offline) &

dialectical rodeo clown (online). — 180 Proof

I love this.

There’s a difference between aspiring to have certain qualities and aspiring to be like another person. It’s the latter that I find problematic. — Michael

I'm sure many would agree. But aspiring to have the virtuous qualities of certain others is a well known path too. Hence gurus and religious leaders like Gandhi. I think the problem is determining what moral goodness is and what 'venerating it' involves. But this belongs elsewhere.

Perhaps but isn't venerating moral goodness also problematic? :razz:

I thought you might say that.

Better to aspire to be your best self instead. — Michael

What if your best self is an exceptionally talented serial killer?

I think people generally choose role models closer to home - the royals, with the possible exception of Her Maj, have generally been a banal and motley crew. Whether it's Phil-foot-in-mouth-the-Greek, toe sucking Fergie, swastika donning dumb-arse Harry, flighty Di, tampon sucking Charles, or even Randy-Pederast-Andy - they make decidedly inadequate subjects of veneration.

He proposed the idea that today ‘liberalism’ is about ‘getting rid of role models’. — I like sushi

Yep, I understood the words he used but as an argument against liberalism I don't think this hits the right target for reasons I presented earlier. Maybe there are other ways of putting this argument that will resonate with me.

Berlin, for sure and Robert Dahl. And Charles Taylor for criticisms of pluralism. I know very little about political theory and it has been 30 years since I studied it.

My point was that is was not a definition of liberalism at all because ‘liberal’ views are still a loosely defined set of rules. — I like sushi

Maybe but my point was that pluralism used to be the liberal ideal. And one it might be argued we have lost. But really all I was interested in is trying to work out what the OP is trying to say.

My impression is that in the US ‘liberal’ (in terms of politicians) basically means slightly right of centre to anyone from Europe. — I like sushi

Agree.

All societies handle conflict. That is probably a damn good definition of what a ‘society’ is … a group of peoples with various opinions and views that actively handle conflicts within their body and at their borders. — I like sushi

Yes, when I studied politics that was essentially called pluralism, a central tenant of liberalism - the peaceful coexistence of a plurality of interest groups and persuasions.

This is what I call a text-based Rorschach Test mon ami. It's about what you see in the text and not about what the text's contents are. :smile: — Agent Smith

Nice. That's how I view Heidegger...

OK. For me there are more pressing concerns that are brought about by the current corporate elites who dominate our rapacious form of capitalism - this and frenzied social media which seems to intensify bigotries and hatreds between people, transforming society into an atomized jumble of inchoate rage, where no one knows or can agree on who should be in charge.

I fail to see how long societies can go on without role models. — Eros1982

Not sure you have yet made a case that there are no role models in Liberal culture. Where are you finding this notion?

Have you had a chance to read alternative translations of the New Testament that have a better command of the Greek originals? I'm thinking of works like David Bentley Hart's version, as a for instance.

But this is a subtle psychological topic, not taking about mathematics or formal logic. :wink: — 0 thru 9

I don't do math or formal logic so that's fine by me. :smile: I consider Jung to be essentially a supernaturalist - his work situates him in the idealist tradition. At least, that's my take and I understand Bernardo Kastrup - a keen Jungian - holds to this view. And yes, supernatural is a silly and inadequate word but I can't think of something more useful at present.

You seem to be talking about portents imbued with some kid of 'magical' value. Perhaps it would help if you could cite something or give me an example of this guidance in action - a specific instance and what it provides by way of guidance.

Thanks for clarifying. You seem to be talking about supernatural guidance. While I believe people contrive all kinds of meaning in events they view as signs or portents, I do not have any good reasons to accept magical thinking of this kind. :smile:

Is this so or have I misunderstood US liberals? — Eros1982

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning, which may be my fault. I'm not an American so the idea of 'liberals' is not something that comes up here much.

I have come to the conclusion that the only way to be politically correct towards liberal morals and aesthetics is to not be rigid at all, to not offend and to be 'open-minded' towards everything that does not violate state laws. — Eros1982

I don't know what this means. What does it mean to be politically correct towards liberal morals?
What has aesthetics got to do with any of this?

but this is what I take modern liberalism for: lack of models & aesthetics that first of all are politically correct (aesthetics which try to include as more qualities as possible, so none might feel excluded and no model may dominate). — Eros1982

I have no idea what this means either. Sorry. Can you try to explain it with examples or cite something?

By the way, the monarchy doesn't function as a role model as such; it functions largely as a bastion of tradition and stability, a symbol of nationhood and continuity. The fact that the Royals need to be seen to behave responsibly largely comes down to a hostile Murdoch media, which seeks to capitalize and magnify any potential indiscretion and the fact that the taxpayer subsidizes them. They can't afford image problems.

Indeed, these are the questions I have for you today: Does not liberalism (as we know it today) stand for the lack of all role models (but volunteerism)? Are we sure that our societies can do well without models?

Thank you for your replies to this discussion. — Eros1982

It's a bit hard to follow what your point is. Liberals come in many varieties, just as conservatives do. Liberals have 'heroes' and role models - James Baldwin, Nelson Mandela, FDR, Gore Vidal, Gloria Steinem, JK Galbraith, Robert Reich, Susan Sontag. I know a number of liberals who quite like the royal family, Charles being a bit of a poster boy for liberal causes such as sustainability and other environmental matters. The point about liberal heroes is that they are generally valued for the contribution they make, not their heritage.

When I am speaking of the question of 'dangerous' ideas, like the Nazi's on one hand and the question of knowledge as questionable I am probably referring to conflicts in assumptions which have appeared historically. — Jack Cummins

Fair enough - I have always thought capitalism more problematic than philosophy in general. But when it comes down to it, humans misuse most ideas in dangerous ways - politics, marketing, medicine, journalism, business, whatever's going. Why would philosophy be exempt from misuse? The most protective measure philosophy has is probably the average person's fairly sensible lack of interest in the subject. We mostly seem to embrace philosophy when we are not aware of what it is.

Guidance seems like a separate thing than Ethics when it comes to choosing our actions and establishing our will / intentions. — 0 thru 9

Guidance is generally attached to a pursuit or worldview (politics, sport, social climbing, literature, etc) and coaches/mentors both informal and formal can provide us with advice subject to identified goals - which may or may not involve morality. Clear guidance from the right source, at the right time, can be invaluable in preventing one from making mistakes and can speed up the acquisition of knowledge.

Could it be a (temporary) surrender of the Self and Will to some other wisdom, power or energy? — 0 thru 9

Not for me. I don't understand what Self or Will mean as transcendent entities (if that's why you capitalised them) - to me the self is merely 'who I am' and I leave Will behind with my copy of Schopenhauer, which currently props up a wobbly couch leg. But I can see how people stop thinking when they go off and follow a religious apologist or a dictator. Is that an example of guidance taken to a lobotomised state?

This is referring to a more “interior” or perhaps “metaphysical” definition of Guidance than reading an article or getting advice from a friend. — 0 thru 9

I know of no form of guidance that isn't practical, although it might be indirect and symbolic rather than overt. What do mean by interior or metaphysical?

Seems to me people are generally drawn to ideas/philosophy that reflect dispositions. We are attracted to ideas which resonate - with which we already have a sympathetic alignment. We can then use a theorist to help us build a scaffolding around our own presuppositions. This is banal, but I've generally found that failed romantics will go for Schopenhauer, self-appointed outliers will be drawn to Nietzsche (and post-modernism) and those who struggle to throw off the religion of their childhood will probably find their way to Jung. And many other variations of the above. I'm drawn to anti-foundationalism because I can't make up my mind about anything. :wink: :razz:

What are the chances of all the people living right now to be here right now? — Persain

This kind of romantic declaration could be said by people (and has been) at any point in human history, so it's a fairly fruitless observation when you reflect on it. The usual framing of this kind of argument is more personal - what are the chances of you being born at all (regardless of the times you find yourself in) given any sperm which gets to fertilize an egg is in competition with 100 million others? My answer: So what? Humans project significance on all things as part of our insatiable urge to make meaning and find personal connection in events and 'reality'.

Only since the 80s'? — Christopher

I mention the 1980's because this was the era during which neo-liberalism bloomed via Thatcher and Reagan and really started the campaign to cut away at humanities departments in earnest, along with many notions of community life.

What interests you? — Christopher

These days I am mostly interested in the positions others have arrived at (on questions of meaning) and why. I am trying to get a better understanding of the idea of intersubjectivity and whether this is a useful concept.

Yes. So what would you ask if you want to know more about the "selfish/selfless nature" of a human being? — Skalidris

I would be unlikely to be asking this kind of question in the first place. I don't find terms like selfish or selfless particularly useful.

If what god wishes is good then if good wishes rape & murder, rape & murder are good. Unacceptable. — Agent Smith

Christians have often responded that there is a third option. Objective morality exists but this standard is not outside of god - morality is grounded in the nature of god himself, who is the perfection of the good. Commands are not based on caprice but are founded on his very being. In this way, god could not command us to do evil things as his nature and goodness are identical. Apologist William Lane Craig has an entire routine based upon this kind of argument which I have hastily summarised from memory.

I am rather amazed when some people seem to see neuroscience as a form of replacement of philosophy — Jack Cummins

I would have thought this was similar to evolutionary science replacing philosophy for many others. Isn't this just how dominant narratives in the current era have unfurled?

Are humans selfish?
Are sciences objective? Is philosophy subjective?
Does free will exist or is it an illusion? — Skalidris

These questions seem to be looking for answers/certainty founded on some kind of metaphysical objectivity, which as far as I am aware is not possible. There are specialist communities in philosophy or science which would have available narratives or 'answers' to such questions for us to consider if we are capable of understanding the complexity of their theorised positions.

From a personal perspective what these questions have in common is that their answers make no discernible difference to how I live my life.

Read him. Best book - Did Jesus Exist. He is not a mythicist - Richard Carrier is your guy for this position. Ehrman says there was likely a guy the myth was based upon but we don't have access to what he taught.

I generally take Professor Bart Erhman's lead on the historical Jesus.

Doesn't change my view on JC. There's really nothing much for us to consider.

I only attempt to argue against an all-good God, so any evil Gods are not part of the scope of the argument — aminima

We have no access to a god in order to determine what god's nature actually is. Is Yahweh, say, good or evil? Discuss. I would say this is unclear from the text. Unlikely to be good. Plus there is the issue of what appears good to humans may look very different to a god. I don't think we build any argument on premises we cannot know to be true.

Focus on the historical Jesus if you want a relatively unbiased look at his teachings. — Tate

I'd say there is no historical Jesus for us to access.

if God exists, nonresistant nonbelievers would not exist — aminima

I don't think this premise can be demonstrated to be true.

A relationship with God would be the highest good in the world if God exists, and God would want to, and have the power to achieve this good. The reason this is the highest good is the same reason why any relationship is good, — aminima

You need to make the case that god is good first, which is not a given. Or that your definition of good corresponds with a deity's. It also doesn't distinguish between theist or a potential deist account. It presupposes in specific terms what a particular account of a god would want - how can anyone demonstrate this?

:up:

There's no circular relationship. Jesus is supposed by Christians to have ended or fulfilled the Mosaic Law. It was replaced by a New Covenant. This, as I pointed out, is standard doctrine for both Catholics and Protestants. — Tate

You're almost there.

The circular relationship refers to Jesus 'using' words from the Old Testament to establish his connection to prophecy and continuity with Yahweh. The New Testament makes frequent use of the Old Testament to establish Jesus' credentials.

I am addressing whether we take the notion of Jesus seriously or not. You might recall the title of the OP is Jesus as a great moral teacher. This invites a broader discussion about Jesus. Which we have partly had.

It's interesting that you sought to tell me that the scriptures cited in the OP was only OT when two NT quotes - Jesus purported words - were included.

.

What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority? — Tate

His authority derives from prophesy in the Old Testament - kind of the point of the narrative.

But that isn't what I was arguing. The OP is about whether Jesus has moral authority. The OP references two NT versus quoting the OT. Hence the circular relationship between testaments. Hence my interest in Jesus.

It's about Jesus' authority and there is this:

For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48

Care to try again? — ThinkOfOne

No, I think we can move on. Take care.

Thanks.

Yes, but do not give them equal status. I prefer Plato's "trinity", the just, the beautiful, and the good. But I do not regard them as eternal Forms. I think that is a misreading of Plato. I have made the case for that elsewhere on the forum. — Fooloso4

Nice. Yes, I remember that debate.

So, you're a traditionalist! The notion of human flourishing (eudemonia) is from Aristotle's Ethics. — Fooloso4

Certainly.

That you say this without revealing the reason strikes me as deceptive, or game playing. — ArielAssante

So here is why I said it in its full context again.

When it gets to debates or arguments between members then often it seems to boil down to 'my reading of the text/s is more nuanced (or more useful) than yours.' With texts all we have are readings, interpretations and re-interpretations. — Tom Storm

What bit is missing for you? I'm simply reporting on how these debates strike me.

You do not appear to have used your 'nuance' skills to understand what I wrote — ArielAssante

Or you have been unclear. On philosophy sites it is not unusual to have a conversation to gain clarity, right?