I envision a system that elects leaders, that discards political parties entirely, and where we vote for ideas and not ideologies, empty dogma, or just the parties themselves. Our democratic system, while good in theory, doesn't actually work, because nobody is taking responsibility and nobody can be held accountable. We point fingers, we change political parties or representatives, but the fundamental issues remain. What good is politics if it doesn't serve the common man? — Martijn

This is a common view these days and, in the U.S., it helps explain the appeal of Trumpism. However, voting solely based on ideas is tricky, since ideas usually reflect dispositions and values: they are not free-floating or value-neutral. As soon as you engage with an issue like housing policy or immigration, people tend to organise based on how they interpret those interests through the lens of values and interests. That’s where politics begins.

Q
The only way that Q can be true is if P
therefore, P

I suggested that the issue is it's reliance minor premise; that there may be other ways, unimagined by ourselves, in which Q can be true that are not dependent on P being true. — Banno

Interesting - is this it?

Reality is the case
Reality could only be possibel if God were the case.
Therefore God must be the case.

In modus tollens
If not P, then not Q.
Q is the case.
Therefore P must be the case.

I guess a famous transcendental argument for god is this one (Plantinga, I recall)
If God does not exist (¬P), then rational thought, morality, or logic (Q) is not possible (¬Q).
But rational thought (or morality, logic, etc.) is possible (Q).
Therefore, God exists (P).

Your point about the first premise holds here too- it hasn't been demonstrated that premise one is correct, so the the argument isn't sound - but it is valid.

I find it interesting that you associate this sort of thing with Peterson. Nietzsche has tended to be more fodder for the left, and I think the "death of God" tends to get rolled out more often by post-structuralists, or at least Continentals more generally, than anyone else. The "political right" has, by contrast, tended towards "God never died in the first place" (or "if 'God is dead and we have killed him,' nonetheless he is risen!"), holding up living traditions as a counterpoint to modernity. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. For years Peterson has been droning on about how Nietzsche is the only atheist who understood the implications of atheism through his death of God frame. There are several lectures on Nietzsche by Peterson on this and he brings it up in a heap of podcasts. He quotes Nietzsche a lot.

Peterson is sometimes incoherent I would not have always said that he is Right - he is conservative but that's slightly differnt. I used to think of him more as a Centrist politically. He self-defined as a progressive leaning centrist. Although his support of Trump and Musk and even Thiel may have moved him further right.

Peterson's bogus obsession with "postmodern Marxists" - is really just Stephen Hick's frame - the guy he seems to borrow most of his philosophical (but not his religious) ideas from. I think his views on Nietzsche may come from Hicks too. People who are learned in postmodernism and Nietzsche tell me Hicks is confused and misread. Of course one man's misreading is another's theorised interpretation. :wink: Any thoughts on Hicks?

My response all along has been the special pleading of religion as evil, not denying it can be evil. — Hanover

For what it's worth, I think your take on this is fair.

If we should examine each of the tens of thousands of bullets suspended in air, now in midflight, and place each under the microscope to decipher what anger is embeded in each of them, I'd suspect that remarkably few have thoughts of God and ancient theologies within them — Hanover

Nicely put.

The hail of gunfire in Ukraine, for example, is a better example of mass destruction than 9/11. What intention do you suppose is impregnated in those bullets, the advancement of Christianity, Judaism, Islam? That doesn't seem right. Probably a drive for natural resources, the rebuilding of a fallen empire, or a a diversion from a failing economy? Secular interests that is. — Hanover

Not so sure about that .

The Russian Orthodox Church, particularly under Patriarch Kirill, provides critical religious justification for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The church has framed the conflict as a "holy war" aimed at defending "Holy Russia" and protecting it from Western influences. Christian nationalism is central to Putin and Trump, it would seem. I would not underestimate the role of the Orthodox church in Putin's Russkiy Mir empire building. Identifying as a Orthodox Christian has been central to his project.

It's true that religion can be exploited by corrupt individuals to sway voters and soldiers: figures like Putin and Trump have utilized religious narratives to bolster their political agendas. This manipulation doesn't render religion any less dangerous; on the contrary, it often provides the anger, motivation, and justification for atrocities, even if the underlying motives may be rooted in nihilistic greed.

That said, I wouldn't argue that religion is the sole source of abject cruelty on our planet. It's merely one of the major players.

I simply believe that anything we find 'normal', including all our behaviours and attitudes, are shaped by the stories we tell ourselves. — Martijn

Of course. Many postmodern thinkers talk about this. Even the ability to question the status quo is embedded in narratives and webs of contingent values.

Well, my guy, Bandt was eventually vanquished. Not sure about Monique Ryan. Hamer is awful. Unfortunately Wilson got over the line.

Well written. J Krishnamurti makes many of these points - especially fear, competition, tradition and convention, the need to question and the need for a shift. I think thoughts like these occur to many people as they move from their teens into their 20s and beyond. But most get sucked into the rat race.

So yes, if we presume to know how God operates, and presume an all-good God would by definition care for my suffering, and presume I know what “all-good” actually means, and I suffer, then either my presumptions are false OR God doesn’t exist.

And so, if my presumptions about God may be false, it is not logically necessary to conclude God does not exist. Therefore, the conclusion of the problem of evil argument that “God does not exist”, is not necessarily a sound estimation of what actually exists and what suffering actually means. The problem of evil is a logical exercise, but not a sound estimation of God and suffering proving anything either exists or does not exist. — Fire Ologist

Yes, we agree - it isn't a logical necessity. The argument is directed at believers, specifically, most believers I've met, who hold to a personal God they think saves people from cancer, rescues lost children and helps them find parking spaces, and yet permits immense suffering on the world.

complaining about the God they don't believe in doing things they don't believe God ought to do. :roll:
— Wayfarer

Essentially, my whole way of thinking about the problem of evil. :100: — Fire Ologist

As you know, the argument from evil is often used by atheists to respond to certain believers who often insist, and I had one say this to me recently: 'Look at the perfection of the world and how good it is; it must be the creation of a benevolent God.' That was the thinking I heard in sermons as a child. The obvious response is that the world is bathed in suffering, and that creatures were created to hunt, kill, and eat each other, with pain as a fundamental expression of life. In my experience that usually ends that line of thinking.

Whatever people think of the argument, for some theists, the problem of evil gives rise to doubt. No less a thinker than David Bentley Hart has conceded this and believes it is one of atheism's best arguments. He is a sophisticated theological thinker, although conservatives often dislike his Left-leaning views. Believers are as tribal as any other group.

But of course, those who want to believe in a just personal God will always construct some kind of exculpatory theory or version of God in which suffering is either necessary, the result of some contamination, or entirely unrelated to the deity. Of course they would. And as I have already said, the argument is primarily used in response to certain naive accounts of God.

I've often thought that some personalities are drawn to narratives of enchantment, while others are not. Those who are see in metaphysics a realm of possibilities, alternative ways of being that imaginatively transcend the immediate and the empirical.

So, what is real? How do we know what is real? — Truth Seeker

You forgot scientism.

Theism – A personal God created and oversees the universe. — Truth Seeker

Not all theisms seem to accept a personal god.

From my perspective, none of the above really matters. I'm happy to drift on experience, not abstractions. I doubt that humans can truly uncover what is "real," since the very word is a construct, an umbrella term covering a multitude of possibilities, as you've shown.

Perhaps my perspective is closer to pragmatism. Which is sidestepping the matter.

At any rate, chasing after "reality" has become a kind of surrogate for God: an ultimate reference point that people invoke to ground meaning, truth, or authority. But just like the divine, it's elusive, shaped more by our frameworks and desires than by any stable essence. You can devote your entire life to chasing what's "real" and get precisely nowhere, and even forget what's actually important.

You can call yourself an idealist, a nondualist, or a psychophysical parallelist, but the moment anyone walks out the door, they're generally a realist and behave pretty much the same as everyone else.

There is a weird sort of relationship between modern culture and elitism, particularly on the left. There is an obsession with access to elite institutions, particularly universities and prep schools, but then this is paired with a denial that having received this sort of elite cultivation actually makes the elite any more suited to leadership. This is sort of contradictory though. If going to an elite prep school and Yale didn't better prepare one for leadership, or career/political success, then there would be no reason to expend so much effort trying to make sure that different people had access to these things. They would be hollow, ineffective status symbols. People could get ahead by ignoring them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is odd. In my experince, here, it's the left that is often elitist - in terms of culture and it's the right who are generally the low brow. I guess it all depends upon how one frames elite. Are we talking who owns the means of production, or who owns some Penguin classics?

I am reminded of art critic Robert Hughes' stance from his autobiography - "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."

With whatever conception of God there is that fits the all-good-powerful-knowing God of the argument, I am asking why is it we can’t account for all the pain and suffering if there is such a God, but we can account for it without God? Why is it we are fine adjudging “An all-good God would not want there to be any suffering let alone all of the gratuitous suffering, but nature needs there to be all of this suffering in order for it to function at all.’ ?? — Fire Ologist

This belief seems easy enough to parse. Isn’t it the case that if there is no god and no meaning then needless suffering actually makes sense? It’s what you’d expect to see in a world with no inherent purpose - struggle, chaos and suffering, But if creation is about genius design and magnificent order and if God cares for us and wants a relationship with us, then suffering by apparent design does not make much sense. It seems contradictory. This is a convincing idea. Of course if your God is an abstraction, a recondite, ground of being type deity, then one would be less likely to have any expectations of the ‘material world’. And no doubt theology can explain away anything.

Knowledge and reason are specifically developed to constrain our choices. — T Clark

Nice.

I'm afraid I don't understand how this can be used.

As I understand him, Nietzsche is an anti-foundationalist in that he rejects the idea of absolute, universal truths or fixed foundations for knowledge, morality, or meaning. Instead, he emphasizes interpretation and perspectivism—the contingency of all values and beliefs. I tend to agree with this.

Bedtime. Bye.

I've not heard of a grounding utility, but I am familiar with foundationalism, presuppositions, and grounding. I understand Nietzsche to reject all such attempts and to be resolutely anti-foundationalist.

I don't think the idea will cause any harm anyway. Every attempt is a good attempt. There's the word again, hehe. — Quk

I don't see any harm. I just don't see any significant use yet.

Must philosophy always solve massive problems all at once? — Quk

I haven't found philosophy particularly useful, so I'm not expecting much.

That philosophical idea is not just an argument against nihilism. — Quk

I can't see it as an argument against nihilism. But it might depend on which version of nihilism you have in mind - it's a broad category. If you're the kind of nihilist who believe life isn't worth living, this principle is unlikely to help. I've worked with many suicidal people and nihilism is ususally about experience, not abstract arguments.

Life is Good - lets all start there. This is the utility it offers. — James Dean Conroy

So I guess this is our point of difference. I had already argued about this earlier. I can't see the utility of this axiom.

Can we put this axiom into some scenarios, I want to see it at work?

"I am suicidal because I was sexually abused by my priest." Life is good.
"I have a terminal disease and wish to end things." Life is good.
"I am homeless and addicted to heroin, I hate my life." Life is good.

Ok, well there's probably no point continuing.

As is this. You've refused to engage in the game - I'm past the point of giving you the benefit of the doubt. — James Dean Conroy

I don't understand what you mean by game.

1. Life is, therefore value exists. — James Dean Conroy

Yes, I can see how this makes sense.

2. Life builds, therefore growth is what is valued. — James Dean Conroy

I can't quite see how growth is valued. But I can see how this is similar to axiom one.

3. Life must affirm itself, or it perishes. — James Dean Conroy

I can see how this makes sense. If life doesn't affirm itself it may perish.

A system that ceases to prefer life will self-destruct or fail to reproduce. Therefore, belief in life’s worth isn’t merely cultural or emotional, it’s biologically and structurally enforced. This is not idealism; it’s existential natural selection.
Implication: To endure, life must be biased toward itself. “Life is Good” is not a descriptive claim about all events; it’s an ontological posture life must adopt to remain. — James Dean Conroy

So what does this ontology give us? I can’t see how this will help people who are wondering whether life is worth living. The fact that life chooses to live doesn’t mean it can’t also choose to die.

I live a fairly contented and privileged life. And yet, if I could press a button to no longer exist, and never have existed, I can’t say I wouldn’t press it. I don't have any overwhelming desire to exist and I am fortunate. The years of illness and old age await. Do I want to experience this?

Here's an example: The whole idea might be of some help to depressive or nihilistic, frustrated people, when they're not seeing any root or basis apriori. This is not an ethical or moral problem. I think it's an epistemological problem. We need to recognize that basis. — Quk

Ok. I don't see the point. Which is why I have been looking at the word 'good' assuming this was a moral argument of some kind.

No, you're not. — James Dean Conroy

You are calling me dishonest.

Or, if you want to continue misrepresentation — James Dean Conroy

Goodness... if I am misrepresenting you that it is not intentional.

The next step, frankly, is to recognise that once you do that (accept the first axiom) - they rest just follows logically. If you're ready - I can show you why. — James Dean Conroy

What's the next step?

Tom, you're still following the playbook I described — James Dean Conroy

All I’m trying to do is reset the discussion to a point where you’re not assuming I’m a dishonest interlocutor.

It’s late here now, so I’ll just ask you one thing:

I agreed with you that your first axiom is probably correct.

What’s the next step?

Read above play book. This is textbook. It's not genuine engagement — James Dean Conroy

Well, I am certainly genuine. And with respect, you can’t actually know what is going on in my mind. You are simply making inferences based on your reaction to our interactions. Is it simply the case that if people don’t agree with you, you need to dismiss them as not genuine? That’s what this looks like.

For the record, I have not argued that you are wrong. I have simply responded to what you have said, and what you say does not seem to follow to me. What you are doing is saying to me, "It’s impossible that you don’t follow this since I am clear and following sound rules of discourse. So you must be deliberately misrepresenting me or arguing in bad faith."

You're still not engaging in real discourse. — James Dean Conroy

I think we're talking past each other; this aligns with option 2 from my earlier comment. I'm genuinely sorry you feel like I'm playing a game. I'm not, and I'm sincerely trying to understand your argument. But when your ideas are questioned, when people struggle to follow the gist, you seem provoked and frustrated, as if you believe the questioning is done insincerely, with the intent to manipulate. All the best.

You’re both conflating distinct categories and ignoring the descriptive nature of what I’ve presented. That isn't addressing what I've said on its own terms. That’s not critique - it’s deflection. You're not playing the game as defined, and to be frank, it’s outrageous. — James Dean Conroy

You need to stop making the mistake (and this is a common one) of assuming that people (who hold different views) are wilfully misunderstanding or manipulating your ideas in the wrong direction. I am doing the best with what I have in front of me here.

Your more appropriate response is to try explaining it again or to admit one of three things: (1) that you are not explaining yourself clearly, (2) that people's perspectives can be so different that talking past each other becomes inevitable, (3) that you may be wrong.

So please jettison the "outrage." My tone and my reflections are completely sincere and simply reflect where your words have led me.

Synthesis does not derive an "ought" from an "is". It states that all value presupposes life - not morally, but structurally. This is not a moral claim; it's an ontological observation about the necessary condition for any value, perception, or evaluation to exist. Without life, there is no frame from which value-judgments can even arise. — James Dean Conroy

I guess most people are already aware of this, but I don't see its utility. Isn't life the fundamental precondition for having any perspective - good or ill?

Stick with here, I think he is onto something and I beleive he is sincerely trying to get to the nub of this matter.

DO you think that your theory contributes to discussions of what we should do next? OF what we should value? — Banno

Banno's quesion here seems apropos.

You say life is good. What exactly is good for? Where does it lead us? What is the role of your idea in how we determine what we ought to do?

As I understand it, the concept of the good is a perspecitive and only gains meaning within a framework where choice is possible. Without choice, there's no standpoint from which to evaluate alternatives, and thus no basis for calling anything ‘good.’

Even if life is predicated on a will for survival, this does not imply that survival itself is good, meaningful, or worth pursuing—it simply reflects a drive, not a reason.

I suppose if someone is psychologically unstable, it's never very difficult to find things in the outside world that seem to confirm their feelings and even amplify them. Politics and culture can become extensions of inner turmoil.

You've expressed some loose opinions, but I'd like to read an argument.

Some laws can be contested. The law intended as the "corpus" of majoritarian norms of legal behavior must be always valid. You are contesting some laws. — Ludovico Lalli

The law is a reflection of the values of a society: the whole reason there is a significant world-wide enterprise of law reform is because society often identifies that our laws are behind current moral thinking and inadequate and unjust. This can include laws on child labour, environmental protection, and the rights of minority groups, laws about drugs, family law, privacy law, health law and corporate legislation. So, the notion that law equals morality seems incoherent and the reverse of how things work. The law is an attempt to codify a culture's moral principles and dominant moral values - it comes after we decide what's right.

I'm not sure I understand the argument. You seem to be saying that some laws are immoral, and therefore morality is separate from the law. But there are laws against homosexuality, abortion, drug use; you name it. So how do we determine when a law reflects a sound moral position?

Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. — Ludovico Lalli

Any constitution is a human made document that can and is altered over time as values change. Some constitutions omit human rights protections, for instance. How do we determine if the constitution represents the good? And how do we translate vague motherhood statements about equality into law?

Law and morality are the same thing. — Ludovico Lalli

So if capital punishment is law in one country and proscribed in another, is it moral? How do we adjudicate between differences in laws pertaining the same matter? Homosexuality? Or are you saying morality is arbitrary and it hitches a ride with legislation?

The Liberals are perhaps too wedded to a conservative agenda to adjust their place. — Banno

Yes. Although for me, the term conservative is fraught. Some of the Liberals, like the aforementioned Wilson, actually promote radical, disruptive ideas steeped in a kind of Rand-style libertarianism. This is antithetical to any genuine conservative tradition. I suppose the only conservative posturing from the Liberals these days is lip service to "Western values" with a nominal Christianity and strong anti-trans, and First Nations skeptic positions. I guess we can talk about social conservatism versus economic radicalism, but in the end the latter always seems to undermine the former.

So if the Greens moved to the Right of the ALP, supporting small business and tradies... :chin: — Banno

Say some more on this.

Was the election a step to the left or a step away from the right? — Banno

I suspect it was a step away from a particular from of right-wing demagoguery voters felt Dutton was too enamoured by. It's a point in time. Dutton was unlikely to appeal widely outside of a specific demographic, particularly those over 55. There's plenty of room for a more sophisticated, dare we say, centrist Liberal party in the future - if they can move beyond the libertarian, culture-war rhetoric. They need a new leader with some of the old Petro Georgiou-style values. Glad that smarmy libertarian prick Tim Wilson is gone.

It's been a long time since I read about Mishima, but I always thought of him as a man who faced deep psychological problems, which informed his work and his theatrical behaviors. He was unsure about the role of physical power, uncertain about his sexuality, and conflicted about his culture and the future. It's easy and perhaps unhelpful to romanticize such figures. Jack London, the American author, often struck me as wrestling with similar themes—his obsession with physical beauty, masculinity and power, his self-styled projection of the Nietzschean superman persona, his disillusionment with, and ruminations on, the failure of American culture to resist the corrupting forces of capitalism. London overdosed on morphine at 40. It was probably accidental, but we're not certain.

I think there is some truth in that, indeed I argue something very similar in the OP Mind-Created World. But the problem I have with it is the implicit presumption that reason is also something that can be understood in terms of visual perception. As many reviewers have noted, if the argument applies to reason and mathematical logic as well as visual perception, then how is Hoffman's book not also an illusory artefact of the selfish gene?

In fact, an interesting comparison can be made between Hoffman's argument, and arguments from (among others) Alvin Plantinga, Thomas Nagel, and C S Lewis. These philosophers all propose various forms of 'the argument from reason', which says that, were reason to be understandable purely in naturalistic terms, as an adaptation to the environment, then how could we have confidence in reason? Of course, that is a very deep question - rather too deep to be addressed in terms of cognitive science, I would have thought. — Wayfarer

Really good point and one that is missed - it seems to be a blindspot in Hoffman's work.

Later in the book, he talks a lot about mathematical models which purport to demonstrate the veracity of his central argument, which culminates in the idea that reality comprises solely conscious agents. Again, an idea I'm sympathetic to - think Liebnizian monads -but the meaning of that claim is left open. The maths seems to be aimed at creating the image (ironically) of scientific versimilitude, as if any theory is not justified by mathematical models will lack credibility. — Wayfarer

Hoff's implying that maths has some kind of transcendent quality that can demonstrate truth outside of our false reality. Like he's a mathematical Platonist by default.

What do you expect from them now on? — javi2541997

I don't expect much but hope to be surprised. At least it's a sincere kick in the pants to Trumpian culture-war posturing.

:up: My guy, Greens Adam Bandt won by a much more slender margin this time (2027 votes).

:up: I'm very pleased Hamer stiffed in Kooyong too. Her ditzy, born to rule TikToks were anathema.

I guess that's fair. Without life there is no perspective.

I have no real view on suffering. I am interested in road testing various arguments to understand them better. Jung strikes me as an idealist and a mystic and I am not convinced his system is correct, that’s all.

I studied Jung for a year through a Catholic lay analyst in the 1980’s. I guess there is a question about whether Jung should be taken seriously or not. I have little doubt that he was sincere and a friend of my family’s was very close to Jung. but I’m not sure I am convinced by his system.

I think the idea that misery is bad is universal, or almost universal. Do you really believe anyone thinks it is good to be miserable? I doubt there are any or at least many. It seems it is your assertion that misery could be considered good, that is out of step and is merely "your conception". — Janus

I’ve met some Catholics, particularly among the Missionaries of Charity, who seemed to believe that misery is a sign of special blessing from God. They wouldn’t say that suffering is good in itself, but they regarded it as a form of grace and they do venerate it. Possibly a sign that the miserable are active participants in the suffering of Jesus.