Are you able to briefly summarize what the alternative to a mind-at-large would be by way of explaining regularities and objectivities in the world?

Start a thread on art and beauty if you haven't already. This is for another discussion.

As I said, reducing aesthetics to beauty is wrong. — Jackson

I don't think it is wrong. It's just not my definition. I generally prefer not to make totalizing statements when it comes to aesthetics. Someone could come along and explain what beauty means in a much fuller, richer intergrated way that I can have imagined. Just saying...

Agree. I have seen that anger too. The reason this subject sets people off is that there is often an implicit assumption that art has a higher status than craft. Maybe a remnant of Platonism. I do not have a definition of art but Ive generally held that art's primary job is providing an aesthetic experience. But @Clarky would prefer us not to get stuck in this particular bog again.

This gets to the heart of it for me. If you believe, as I do, that art is anything made to be judged aesthetically, how do you classify things that are made to be useful, comfortable, and reliable for which aesthetics is secondary at most? — T Clark

I've pondered this for some years. My imperfect answer is that such objects are craft works, not art works. One area where this gets tricky is in what is often called 'art of the ancient world'. Two items spring to mind - an Egyptian sarcophagus made of cartonage, painted, colourful and decorative; and an Athenian painted vase vase. They are both objects primarily designed to have a function - a coffin and a jug respectively. They they are now admired solely for the art they reveal. Are they everyday crafted objects which have transcended their status is some way? Or are do they embody a kind of dualism of purpose - equally both art and craft?

For me the time to believe something is when there is good evidence for it. So it makes no real difference to the OP's question to me.

there may be a general purpose for which the whole system was put in place, — enqramot

Meaning what? Hinduism; Islam; Theosophy; Transcendental Idealism; UFO's; Simulation Theory??

1. What causes a turn from distraction to facing the meaninglessness of human existence?

2. How do you personally deal with it? — Tate

I've rarely thought that existence is meaningless in the sense that this idea would be unsettling. Meaning is found in daily living, relationships, caring for others and hobbies. I can't imagine that it is any different for people who believe in god/s. I've certainly met numerous suicidal Christians, without any purpose and this was not owing to a lack of faith.

Magic tricks have rational explanations, miracles by definition fall outside of the laws of nature. — Moses

Think bigger - miracles may just be tricks which have not been explained rationally yet. Also, I have seen magic tricks that look to be defying the laws of nature. Good ones do. Hence my question what is a genuine miracle?

I guess one could attribute Christ's miracles to the work of Satan but we're still within a religious framework where Christ is either the messiah or a false prophet sent by Satan/evil. — Moses

No. I said Satan can do miracles too. No attribution was made. This goes to your point:

I mean come on, what more are you asking for? That's religious stupidity right there. One genuine miracle is enough for me. — Moses

In other words as I wrote, a miracle is no good evidence of divinity or goodness.

Why would being able to do magic tricks or 'miracles' be any evidence of a spiritual truth or divinity? There is no necessary connection. — Tom Storm

This goes to your point:

If we choose to believe in the miracles I'm certainly sold — Moses

If not, then I don't see how you avoid the charge of solipsism. If so, then you are just giving another name (i.e., mind stuff) to what makes up the external world. — Real Gone Cat

The idealists I know argue that the world is objectively the case, it just isn't made of matter. It is mind when seen from a particular perspective. What holds reality together is consciousness at large - not your consciousness, or mine.

There are idealists who argue that materialism is incoherent because matter is just what can be measured, it has no qualities - taste, touch, colour, smell, etc. These are provided by us through our brains. So in a strange way they say is materialists who are solipsists, or prisoners of the brain in their skulls.

If we choose to believe in the miracles I'm certainly sold. I'm baffled by the position that claims "well sure Jesus performed miracles but who's the say he's the messiah!" I mean come on, what more are you asking for? That's religious stupidity right there. One genuine miracle is enough for me. — Moses

This is a bit odd to me. One genuine miracle? What is a genuine miracle? There are men all over India right now doing miracles. There are healers 'faith healing' people from illness from all kinds of cultures and religious traditions. I once watched a man throw a sword in the air which then vanished. He was a magician.

Why would being able to do magic tricks or 'miracles' be any evidence of a spiritual truth or divinity? There is no necessary connection. Human technology now would look like miracles to people 100 years ago. And then there's mythology more generally - Satan can do miracles too. Miracles are stunts and do not have much value.

True, but in classical music, for example, interpretation is so key. — Noble Dust

Maybe a soulless technical performance is just one without much of an interpretation or 'personality'. I have to say the more I think about it the less any of this seems to matter to me. There's just what I like and everyone else has pisspoor taste. :wink:

You're feeling feelings Tommy boy! Embrace it! — Noble Dust

I don't think it is emotion - that doesn't generally work for me, it has to have something more. It's a visceral thing.

Can you define "craft"? I still don't understand this word. — Noble Dust

For me craft focuses on skill - a work is loosely or strictly based upon a pattern or formula (eg, song writing, journalism, ship building, making a table). Making a pair of boots is a craft - there is a pattern to follow. Some craftspeople go a step or two further and can make a pair of boots a thing of beauty. Perhaps this is high craft, some might even call it art at that level. But none of this is exact and this is only my working definition.

I worked briefly for an antiquities/art dealer in the 1980's who sometimes sold 'important' paintings. In discussing the work they would often separate out art from craft and talk about the work's emotional impact, capacity to surprise, etc (art) as opposed to the extent to which the artists was a competent draftsperson (craft).

How much of my enjoyment of the song came from the skill of the musicians? What else matters? — Clarky

Good question. Quick brain dump with some opining. We tend to enjoy the things we already appreciate. Why do we like them? Because we like things like them. So if craft is important to you, it's probably because you already like well executed things. Some artforms are all about the craft (classical music) but sometimes really accomplished performers can sound slightly soulless. I can't explain this but for me technical skill is pointless without something more - perhaps it is emotion.

I have had a side hustle as a writer (TV and journalism and speech writing) this is definitely a craft. But when done with sufficient inspiration could be an artform. For me, however, great writing almost always seems like craft - even Nabokov or Edith Wharton.

My favourite singers are not great vocalists - Tom Waits and Leonard Cohen - but they have something more - what is it? Buggered if I know, but it matters to me. Doesn't hurt that their songs are brilliantly written and make the most of their range, such as it is.

You know it's still happening today!
We all have a responsibility here! — universeness

No doubt.

The 'doesn't much matter comment' referred to the question of Jesus; real or fiction.

Every moment you lived was but a fleeting second — jasonm

Actually some better moments went the full hour.

Some things to think about... — jasonm

Not really. Unless there is good reason to think this, why tie yourself into knots? Can anyone demonstrate that there is anything after life ends? And even if there were, can it be demonstrated that the perspectival orientation of the living you is the same interpretative value system you would employ (and find meaningful) after death? Not on your life (and that's no pun).

Sure, it doesn't much matter to me, but I think there may have been an itinerant preacher or two who inspired the stories. There are reasons for this I forget now, and a lot of secular scholars agree. As you know, there's no reason to think the gospel stories happened, for many reasons, and no one knows who wrote them and they appeared decades after JC was supposedly killed. But getting into the minutia of who did what, when and why is beyond tedious - it's like debating the merits of Adam Sandler movies while listening to Celine Dion singing The Power of Love on repeat.

Not all Christians are banal, concrete minded literalists - many see the Bible as a series of allegories. Almost all the Jewish and Christian friends I have had - including priests, sisters and rabbis (sounds like a song by Leonard Cohen) have viewed the stories as a means to focus a spiritual life, but ususally not as actual events. I lack a sensus divinitatis, so I'm buggered if I can work out how this is done.

Of course, no claim is made that the above arguments prove anything. It’s just some thoughts which may or may not be true. — Art48

Indeed. And my question about these sorts of Theory of Everything postulates is what difference do they make? Pretty sure people (me certainly) will behave the same regardless of the metaphysics.

I'm not generally up for ground of being type models as they sound sentimental and all too human. I also think any notion of ultimate truth is chimera.

Do you find it at all satisfactory, this rejection of an "external world" in favour of an "over mind" that does pretty much the very same thing?

We can both see the table. Do we both se the over mind? Which is a better explanation of our agreement? — Banno

I hear you. To be perfectly honest, I don't look for explanations. I generally just get on with it and I have rarely been disappointed. My interest in metaphysical suppositions has come late in life.

If all of reality is consciousness 'emanating' from some big cosmic mind and we are all dissociated alters of this mind, then that is kind of cool. However, I have no idea what that means, how it would be demonstrated to be true and if it makes any difference to us in practice.

Since according to idealism the world is a product of Big MInd, not your mind or mine, then on that position there may indeed be truths that are not known. Have you read Berkeley at all, or are you at least familiar with his philosophy via secondary sources? — Janus

The idea of Will, mind-at-large and cosmic consciousness - whatever it is called, from Schopenhauer to Kastrup, seems to be central to many forms of idealism. From here it is argued we derive an objective world and regularities in what we call nature. It's why the moon doesn't vanish when you stop looking at it, etc. It interest me that in this discussion we get bogged down in parsing notions of realism and rarely explore the idea of mind-at-large, which seems to me to be unavoidable and a god surrogate. And when I say unavoidable, I am not referring to its reality but to it's explanatory power in idealism. Any thoughts on this?

If you have the notion, I would recommend 'Caesar's Messiah,' by Joseph Atwill — universeness

It's worth noting that we should be cautious of books which present tendentious accounts of early Christianity. The area is fraught with polemical half-truths, with an eye on best seller status. Some atheist scholars of Christianity, like Bart Ehrman, consider Atwill to be dubious. The funny thing about these kinds of books is that they are sometimes like secular counterparts to the conspiracy theories of theists. I say this only because we don't want to debunk one dodgy book (The Bible) with another...

I think the metaphor "take into heart" or "open your heart" means still the same as when the Bible was written. The difference between brain and heart goes back to those times (or far earlier) I guess. — ssu

Sure, but using reason to demonstrate the necessity of God is in the traditional repertoire too. Christianity has been big on trying to demonstrate that reality, the laws of logic, etc, would be incomprehensible without a foundational guarantee of a great mind or God. It's probably their main tool when doing apologetics. As someone who grew up within the Baptist tradition I never heard language like 'open your heart' but I did hear, 'something from nothing is impossible'. But no doubt it varies around the world and in America I imagine emotional reasons are big with fundies...

wonder if people have been in a Church listening to a sermon where the priest has talked about really "thinking" about Jesus, using your brain, using logic, using your knowledge and deducting it all and the finding yourself the proof, a proof that simply is, like it or not, and something that has nothing to do with your emotions. — ssu

Kind of - it's called presuppositional apologetics. There's also Alvin Plantinga an influential American analytic philosopher who works primarily in the fields of philosophy of religion, epistemology, and logic. His arguments have made their way into churches I've seen for many years.

Oh, and this, too.

Commentary on my article “Quantum Wittgenstein” in Aeon Magazine — Banno

They were a very good read. Thanks.

Wayfarer would discuss a spiritual aspect of the world, which seems to me an impossible task. It's not that I deny this sublime aspect of reality, but taking seriously that it is ineffable, and hence beyond discussion. Hence it becomes a place of disagreement. — Banno

That's helpful, thanks.

I see it as distinctly different tasks within the world. It's about direction of fit, about the difference between how things are and how we want them to be, rather than metaphysics. — Banno

I see your perspective and I think I intuitively privilege this 'direction of fit' myself to some extent. It sounds a little like pragmatism - 'Well we don't know or have access to ultimate metaphysics (whatever that may be), so let's get on with what we can say and what we do know works.' Is that unfair?

The answer can only be, 'it depends'. — Wayfarer

This seems to be the central theme, the potential depths of 'it depends'. Are we back at Banno's multi-functional apple?

From my side, Banno's main influences are Wittgenstein, Davidson, Austin et al, who are influential in analytical philosophy. You could say they're the mainstream. My influences are more counter-cultural and (I think) more existential. — Wayfarer

I'm aware of all that, my question is more of a technical one - the nub of the problem seems to hinge on specific formulations of epistemology. And this part of the dispute is edifying. What I was asking is where is the initial point where your respective approaches separate from each other? I reread the arguments above and it seems you are both talking about separate matters. Perhaps I'm not making sense to both of you... :razz:

Why would a physicalist have a policy on refugees? — Jackson

It's a social justice issue. Hence how we treat others. Here in Australia, we put people into detention centers for seeking asylum. Hence @Banno is correct around why this matters.

What are those first principles shared by physicalists and Jesuits? — Jackson

Human rights; refugee policy; social justice; welfare reform; drug law reform; justice for Aboriginal Australians; economic reform; housing policy reform - that kind of stuff.

No, it's not a muddled question, it is crystal clear to me. Just because you don't think in such terms, doesn't mean that it's a muddled question. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that you and @Banno are unable to start this 'debate' from the same place. Is this just a matter of holding different presuppositions rather than a question of language?

When Banno says:

If you are going to talk about something's being fundamental, you have to be clear about what it is you are doing. What is fundamental when designing bridges is not what is fundamental when planning birthday parties, nor to what is fundamental to doing paraconsistent logic. — Banno

You see this as being a separate matter and that it is not addressing the question of what is fundamental about the nature of reality - is that it? Are you able to summarize what you think the apple of discord is, or are you tired of it? I ask as someone interested in more fully understanding both positions. Can the difference in approaches be distilled down to one key question?

What's curious is that there is I think a much greater difference in between how we think things are than what we think ought be done. — Banno

That's a juicy morsel and I think it's true. The physicalist atheist and the dedicated Jesuit often share first principles about how we should treat others. I think this is why I have avoided philosophy in the past as I am temperamentally inclined towards action over contemplation (which comes with its own problems).

Do you have a view about why this situation arises?

Oh, and Sondheim is one of my favorite thinkers.

Religions don't have a monopoly on belief. — Wayfarer

Agree although I would say that neo-liberalism is a religion...:wink:

Maybe part of Trump's appeal is that he exemplifies 'you can create your own reality, never mind facts' — Wayfarer

Indeed. Which is another imagined appeal of being filthy rich.

I suspect that facts are not the primarily the issue in this matter. It's all about feeling, one liners and channeling resentment. Discourse seems to have become a weaponized form of stand up comedy.

Lachlan Murdoch may have acted with “actual malice” in directing the network — Bloomberg

Lots of people are waiting for Rupert to die. Problem is Lachlan may well make Rupert look like the compassionate one.

It becomes easy even to find the structures and functions that can explain the existence of Santa Claus: quantum physics, with all their magics, have become now the magic hat that makes possible to find the physical reason for the existence of whatever we like to believe or to dream of. It is so sweetly romantic: we exist! Thank you, quantum physics! — Angelo Cannata

Nice, and very funny.

Typically they are conservative and want to maintain the status quo; this taste for revolution is coming, — Janus

You raise good questions and I don't have certainty on this, just some ideas. I think conservatism has been coopeted by a more radical right that has little interest in social institutions or tradition, other than what can be used for propaganda and to ignite hatreds. This seems to be the case in most English speaking countries. Even the idea of a 'right wing' is an inadequate and perhaps outdated term.

So, it seems to me the answer lies in the growing perception that the left have sold out to corporate and plutocratic interests. This perception is also there in Australian politics, but the intensity is dialed down somewhat. — Janus

Certainly. There are a range of reasons for Trump and the culture wars. Or Howard and the culture wars - or Abbott and Morrison and the culture wars. We live in a new era of super charged tribalism that can readily be organized and inflamed by social media and Murdoch. I think this intensifies bigotries and rewards dualistic thinking.

I agree with you about disaffected working folk - there should be a way to reactivate a Reformist Left (as opposed to a Cultural Left, which may be seen more as a product of elites and latte sipping hypocrites).

When I speak with working people I often hear that for them much of what passes for the Left hates and mocks them because the left is about elitism (education) and cultural issues they don't relate to and is palpably snooty about working people and the suburban life. I can see why they say that. 'The Right' has an opportunity to say - hey, we're not elitists, we don't dig modern culture much either, we just want all people to live the dream and make money for their family and be left alone by academic wankers and interfering governments. This can be seductive.

Now these things may not resonate with you, but these teachings appeal to many people even outside of Christianity. Furthermore, there are many parallels to Jesus's teachings and the teachings of Buddha and other religions. Many scholars argue (secular) Humanism is simply a "rebranding" of Christian ethics/Christianity. — Paulm12

I think this is fair. Not thinking of anyone in particular, but some people don't connect with ideas because of personal experiences and the merit of those ideas may be obscured by socialization. This certainly happens to me. Christianity for me is often associated with a kind of dowdy and obtuse earnestness.

Nevertheless, all the religious teachings I have read over the years, the one I keep coming back to is the Parable of the Good Samaritan. It resonates with me for some reason, probably because it makes all people our responsibility, even our enemies. The influence of Christianity is a problematic question as that influence has for centuries been enforced by the mighty and the powerful, who more or less inflicted the faith on people. For centuries (and even now in some places) one could not dissent or refuse to accept Jesus without ferocious repercussion. Christianity is not just about gentle Jesus, mild and meek, it is also the story of Empire; homicidal and rapacious.

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans. — baker

Yes, I think this may explain a lot of it.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

It's a culture war and tribalism like this is about attack and maintaining the rage. Trumps biggest attraction is that he seems to have the right enemies - his content is useful primarily as a battle cry.

:up:

Incidentally I don't place G E Moore's refutation of idealism anywhere beyond Johnson's argumentum ad lapidem. 'Here is a hand' is no more a refutation than kicking a rock. — Wayfarer

Sure, for the idealist these would just be demonstrating the regularities inherent in an experience produced though mentation - matter being what mind looks like when seen from a certain perspective. I suppose the argument would be that these are examples of mistaking the map for the territory.

I would say, reality is not generated by the mind but that everything we experience and know is generated by the mind. But we cannot see that process of construction ('vorstellung' in Schopenhauer, 'vikalpa' in Buddhism) 'from the outside', as it is the act of cognition. That's why it's a not a model as such. — Wayfarer

Good. That clarifies things.

But, 'In order to make a comparison, we must know what it is that we are comparing, namely, the model on the one hand and the object on the other. But if we already know the reality, why do we need to make a comparison? And if we don't know the reality, how can we make a comparison?' — Wayfarer

Yes, an odd kind of dualism.

Splendid question. To a fruit-fly, an apple is host to its eggs. If I throw an apple at an annoying bird, it's a weapon. To fruit bats and primates it is food, whereas it wouldn't necessarily register to a carnivore. Which is 'the real apple'? — Wayfarer

This is true, but these are all experiences of the one thing as seen by different beings? It's a type of species-perspectivism, perhaps, but the same object is in play. This notions seems more like a phenomenology.

Full circle, then. As I replied to that post, when one's mind constructs reality, what is it mind constructs it from? — Banno

I think that's the key question in this matter.

When you look at the apple, your brain constructs a model of the apple. But that model is not what you see; it is you seeing.

What you see is the apple. — Banno

Cripes, this thread is like standing before one of those distorting fun house mirrors watching reality bend and dissolve. :gasp:

Do you generally follow Searle on this? It fascinates me how many challenges seem to be built into perception/realism and indirect realism models.

I'm new to much of this. Quick questions. I'm assuming when I see and handle an apple, my perceptual apparatus provides matter (the apple) with all its qualities - colour, size and shape, smell, texture, even taste. This is all an elaborate construction work that humans seem to (largely) share. A bat would have a different range of experiences with this fruit, but it would still be of the apple, right?

Are idealists suggesting that matter has no inherent qualities and that these are provided by conscious creatures in the world, therefore reality is generated by mind? Would an indirect realist say there is an apple behind the appearances/qualities (a noumenal fruit, perhaps?), but it has none of the qualities humans apprehend and appreciate. Our conscious experience puts them there.

A metaphysical or ontological idealist presumably would say that both the qualities and matter itself are creations of mind - our own mind, and, presumably some other mind. Otherwise solipsism...

Where have I gone wrong?

Steelmanning or otherwise, without granting....understood a priori as given.....the intrinsic duality of human nature, no defense of any version of idealism will be acceptable. Or, another way to put it, the only defense of any version of idealism is predicated on an intrinsic duality of human nature. — Mww

Still mulling over this. It occurred to me then that Nietzsche greatly disliked Kant's formulation of idealism because he saw it as a form of Christianity disguised as philosophy - a hateful dualistic world of two realms - a 'false' physical world, which is overshadowed by the special, hidden realm, the beyond world that is the legitimate subject of metaphysics... Sounds familiar....

"Why all the rejoicing over the appearance of Kant that went through the learned world of Germany, three-fourths of which is made up of the sons of preachers and teachers--why the German conviction still echoing, that with Kant came a change for the better? The theological instinct of German scholars made them see clearly just what had become possible again. . . . A backstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the "true world," the concept of morality as the essence of the world (--the two most vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then at least no longer refutable... Reason, the prerogative of reason, does not go so far. . . Out of reality there had been made "appearance"; an absolutely false world, that of being, had been turned into reality. . . . The success of Kant is merely a theological success; he was, like Luther and Leibnitz, but one more impediment to German integrity, already far from steady."

- Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 10