In line with Richard Dreyfus's criticisms of computer science in the seventies that predicted the failure of symbolic AI, AI research continues to be overly fixated upon cognitive structure, representations and algorithms, due to western culture's ongoing cartesian prejudices that continue to falsely attribute properties, such as semantic understanding, or the ability to complete a task, to learning algorithms and cognitive architectures per-se, as opposed to the wider situational factors that subsume the interactions of machines with their environments, that includes the non-cognitive physical processes that mediate such interactions. — sime

I think you are referring to Hubert Dreyfus' work, not the American actor from Close Encounters... :wink:

but I wanted to know the subtle reasons why people chose Christianity over other religions in the first place. — guanyun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Christianity

As a first step this may give you some pointers. Don't forget that while Christianity may have endured for centuries, like Islam, the early faith is quite different to the faith it has become.

:up:

Have you read Fear and Trembling? — Tate

No. I was referring to my take on the Abraham/Isaac story, not Kierkegaard's - fascinating though his probably is.

Nicely done. I think this point -

From a methodological point of view, that is perfectly sound, but it is easily forgotten that the mind of the detached scientific observer is still, after all, a mind. 'But where is that "mind"?' will come the question. To which the answer is that it is never the object of cognition, nor is it amongst them (which is the basis of the so-called 'hard problem' argument). — Wayfarer

- is easy to see but more challenging to understand in the fullness of its implications. Even having read some Evan Thompson, it's a concept I often find slippery.

Ha. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says Abraham had the hope that takes the form of madness.

Sometimes maybe madness is needed. — Tate

Or madness takes a form of hope. I think the god depicted in that particular story is a deity who abuses its power.

Agree. I ask not because I don't have position but because @Wayfarer is an articulate exponent of idealism and there is sometimes confusion about what idealism means.

Agree. Would you be game to define idealism in, say 4 or 5 sentences or dot points (taking as given that there are various versions)?

Early Christian thought and theology was heavily influenced by texts and philosophies that already existed. It's perhaps not surprising that the New Testament is packed with fulfillments of ancient prophecies. — Cuthbert

No question. And another way some people look at this is to see Christianity as a derivative belief system that has cannibalized and borrowed from other religions and mystery cults to manufacture yet another faith system.

Yes, but what constitutes :good" evidence is also a matter of opinion. In fact I would hazard to say that I doubt that anyone considers something evidence without simultaneously considering it to be good evidence (in kind at least if not in quantity). — Janus

No question they think this. But we have to make judgements, and I argue the 'faith' camp inhabits a dubious space and have provided my reasons. If people want to say that faith is a reliable pathway to truth and then use this faith to justify homophobia and racism and misogyny, we probably shouldn't accept that. The fact is everyone has their reasons for doing things. Some of those reasons seem to me to be less reliable than others. But I make no proclamations about absolute truth.

I doubt that anyone believes anything without thinking they have evidence to support that belief. — Janus

Good point, I forgot a word, I should have said without 'good' evidence.

I'm not sure what your point is here. How would you define philosophical optimism? — Tate

In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having.

I also think optimism is one of those notions that works so well for capitalist societies. Implicit in such optimism is the notion that 'you can make it' and that the system is the best there is and that we'll all get there in the end. Optimism helps us to cope with systemic failure and oppression.

I dont have that particular allergy. If I can learn something from religion, I won't let that sort of thing stand in my way. — Tate

Sure, me too. Faith isn't one of those things, for the reasons I have listed.

I can learn anything I want without falling into a pit of superstition in the process. — Tate

That's something I hear atheists say all the time. Are you a pessimist?

I think you'll find that ostentatious optimism is pretty strong amongst members of cults and religions, but quite possibly if you scratch under the surface the doubts will become visible.

I want to explore the meaning of faith and how it relates to optimism and hope. If you have thoughts on that or the meaning of faith, please jump in. — Tate

I don't use the word 'faith' as it is too drenched in religious baggage. I generally regard faith as the excuse a person gives for believing in something despite a lack of evidence. As in Hebrews 11: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If one has evidence, one doesn't require faith. You can say, 'Well an atheist has faith that a plane they catch won't fall out of the sky.' The response: we can demonstrate the existence of a plane and we know that they almost always fly safely, so getting on one isn't a matter of faith, it is a reasonable confidence based on evidence that it will do its job.

Another issue with faith is that there isn't anything that can't be justified with an appeal to faith. I have amongst other clangers heard people say that homosexuality is wrong because faith tells them so and that South Africa's Apartheid system was 'right' and justifiable through faith.

But, in any case, notice the element of judgement - which is something characteristic of humans. — Wayfarer

I think that's a helpful frame. Thanks.

You say humans have moral worth because it's inherent in their being.

I say humans have moral worth because of their divine essence. — Hanover

Actually, just getting back to this, I don't say that that humans have ethical standing (moral worth) as inherent. I am not sure how 'inherent' functions. As you have pointed out, that is very close positing a 'sacred'. I think society makes choices about how we identify or construct the human and one such act of intersubjective agreement is that humans have rights - which may in some instances equate with ethical standing, but I am not sure if it does.

And yes, before you say it, it is likely that societies arbitrarily determine who is human and who is not, who gets rights and under what circumstances. My government has for many years violated the rights of refugees and Aboriginal people. If I say this is wrong, I say this as a consequence of my own presuppositions about such matters which do not contain any transcendental justification. But I am willing to concede that some of my formation in the area of moral thinking arises from my cultural Christianity.

Exactly. I already told you I am not a philosopher. Jesus.

I'm not a philosopher so for me much of what is discussed sounds like incantations and spells and often resembles some kind of shell game. The pea representing whatever form of truth you want to bet your worldview on. :wink:

I build my magical castles in the heavens. Yours are built from the ground, but all is magic nonetheless. — Hanover

I can see that. Seems to me that most philosophy boils down to some kind of magic.

I though a philosophy WAS a ‘system of ethics’. — Joshs

A tantalizing prospect.

:up:

You must have noticed by now that philosophy is not of much help in deciding between the various systems of ethics. All it can do is set out the relationships between them. — Banno

Indeed.

But we are social, and ethics is a political act. — Banno

Yes, and this much is also clear to me.

Though it is not often made explicit, in the end the demise of the Liberal Party is down to their moral failure ("lack of ethical standing"); to not looking at the greater interest of out common wealth, apparent in climate denial, cronyism , pork barrelling, non-action on corruption, cruelty to refugees and the poor (robodebt), and so on.

Ethical considerations have a way of rising to the top. — Banno

Which is a good thing - especially when 'the mob' is in agreement with my own values.

Thanks

"Moral worth" is not my favourite term. "Ethical standing" might be better.

"Intrinsic value" might be thought to imply that values are found, but that's exactly wrong. — Banno

Nice. I like 'ethical standing' more too. 'Moral worth' sounds like a Christian apologist.

If we decide how things ought to be, is there a preferred philosophical approach to resolve a difference of views?

That worth does not derive from their relation to a god or gods, or to a background of spiritual discourse. It does not depend on any discourse. The moral worth of humans is not derived, but intrinsic. — Banno

So is this a presuppositon? What exactly does it rest upon? Asking for a friend... :wink:

What does moral worth really mean? Is it the same as intrinsic value?

What we have a great deal
of difficulty doing is recognizing that a fact only makes the sense it does within a particular account, and people from different backgrounds and histories use different accounts to interpret facts. — Joshs

Totally agree. But are there not also some dishonest people involved, who do know different to what they profess?

So I would make two points: The first is that any definition that claims to set out the essence of being human will be wrong. The second is that the process of defining what it is to be human is ethical and political.

So it might be worth giving some consideration as to if one ought try to set out such an essence. — Banno

I agree with this. I do not believe there can be a definition setting out what it is to be a human and I am not an essentialist. And arguably the groups who have sought to define what is human have tended towards genocidal projects.

You keep twisting around what I say.. — baker

Well if I do it's by accident and/or perhaps that you lack clarity? Maybe we should move on then.

My cattle dog once ran after a ball that went off the end of our balcony. The balcony was three floors high on the side of a steep incline. Oblivious, the dog leapt off the balcony after the ball. I went to have a look dreading what I might find. And there was our foolish dog chasing the ball down the hill.

Is it just an accident, a question of circumstances, or is Marx's ideology deeply flawed? — Agent Smith

I'm not convinced that we can say Marx's ideology is deeply flawed given that those totalitarian, ostensibly 'communist' states didn't actually follow Marx.

I would say there is something inherently dangerous in the aftermath of any social/political revolution, whether it be Communism, Fascism, secular or religious. What does Zizek say again? 'The biggest problem with revolution is the morning after.' Human nature and power play have a habit of hijacking and distorting the fidelity of theory.

I can only suppose it's the anti-capitalist iconoclasm that gets their goat. And the general challenge to the political and cultural status quo. As if it's not obvious to anyone with eyes to see that our society has gone insane. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I think that's spot on.

Enjoying this OP. Fromm is incisive and acute. It has often stuck me that a deep dive into the true nature of capitalism may be the only reliable path to a nuanced appreciation of Marx.

"By alienation is meant a mode of experience in which the person experiences himself as an alien. He has become, one might say, estranged from himself. He does not experience himself as the center of his world, as the creator of his own acts — but his acts and their consequences have become his masters, whom he obeys, or whom he may even worship. The alienated person is out of touch with himself as he is out of touch with any other person. He, like the others, are experienced as things are experienced; with the senses and with common sense, but at the same time without being related to oneself and to the world outside positively."
- Fromm, The Sane Society, p.120 Sect.C.2.b "Alienation”

"We consume, as we produce, without any concrete relatedness to the objects with which we deal; We live in a world of things, and our only connection with them is that we know how to manipulate or to consume them."
- Fromm, The Sane Society p.134 Sect.C.2.b "Alienation”[/quote]

A recent experience got me thinking about “folk” versus theological views. I stated that Christianity believes in good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell. Someone told me that I lack a “subtly nuanced” understanding of heaven and hell, meaning, I suppose, that I lacked a theologian’s understanding.

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell. — Art48

I don't think this is a theologian's idea, although no doubt many theologians do think this.

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition in the 1970's-80's and it was generally held by various congregations that the Bible was a collection of myths and allegories, much of it not to be taken literally and that heaven and hell were metaphors. Hell was simply an absence of god. Most of my friends who came out of the Anglican (Episcopalian) tradition held similar views.

I don't think there is one type of folk theology - hence the general distinction between literalists and others. I also think some cultures are more likely to continue to tie notions of vengeance and judgement and dualistic thinking onto their religious beliefs.

It's so interesting to me that people who cannot understand Derrida love to flag just how much they cannot understand Derrida. — Streetlight

I've noticed this phenomenon for many years and wondered why it is that Derrida seems to be the one to arouse the most antipathy and toxic bewilderment. I might have expected this reaction to Heidegger or Hegel, perhaps. I looked over Derrida's writing some decades ago and occasionally since then and, in my case, I have to accept that I've been too lazy and don't know much about the philosophical tradition he emerges from and that he is just too intricate for me to follow. I have no idea if his contribution was or is useful and, as with string theory, I'm quite happy to assume that some people (and I imagine it's not many people) actually know what is at stake.

*

Ok. Not trying to be a dick. But what is ‘awareness’ in this schematic?

I think Heidegger et al. would disagree with this. In his view, human being is an openness, or a "clearing." I'm sympathetic to this view as well. — Xtrix

What is openness or a clearing? Potential?

I am wondering what others have to say about the characteristics of a human being and also how are these characteristics gained? — Athena

I've never explored this question in depth as I suspect it is largely a product of perspective and I'm not sure it is of significant use to me. I generally hold that humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. Most humans seem to require social contact and some form of validation and emotional comfort and an experience of love (however that looks for them). How do we develop our characteristics? Not sure it matters to me. In talking to people who have suicidal ideation, the most common themes (apart form traumatic histories) are that they feel isolated, misunderstood and devalued by family/friends/society. Seems to me human desire to connect meaningfully with others and how successful we are in achieving this, tends to determine whether we are content or resentful.

Do you think a poor, ugly person enjoys being self-aware, benefits from it? — baker

I would say that self awareness has no bearing on appearance or financial resources. You seem to be talking about self-consciousness or self-hatred.

The elites do. That's why they exist. — baker

Depends on what you mean by elites. Those I have met don't read, they prefer gallery openings. And there are people I know who live on unemployment who study Kant... so I would say it's anyone with free time, which may have little to do with 'higher status'.

Nicely done and appreciated. :up:

Gasché is writing for insiders. But here's a decent expositor. — igjugarjuk

That quote I do understand. And you have a talent for entertaining and pellucid explication.