An incel.

Fascinated disgust? — Banno

Would the Freddy fans say that this is because you're enslaved by modernist foundationalism?

A friend of my mums was a close colleague of Carl Jung's - I asked him about FN on the basis that I though Jung was FN friendly. He described Nietzsche as a 'deplorable teenager'.

Isn't it odd that American rock is so...derivative; pale imitations of their British overlords. — Banno

I don't listen to rock often but when I do it's Cream and the Stones over others.

Morrison was a wannabe Jagger. — Banno

You could leave out the Jagger bit...

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure, but can't you say the same about any human activity at all? Almost any thought system, activity or profession has its share of toxic, dictatorial narcissists.

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist?

You make it sound like a bad thing... :razz:

I wanted to ask you earlier what you thought of Nietzsche.

Nothing substantive to say other than you've set out the OP very well. :wink:

Personally I don't value intuitions highly - I have known too many people who get to positions of 'burn the witch' based on intuition. But there may be different categories of intuition, some based on competent readings of experience. In other words, I agree with your point below -

My strong opinion, based on introspection, is that it is mostly, maybe completely, based on experience. — T Clark

I would be interested to hear what others have to say about a priori - and synthetic a priori. There may be space in this discussion to explore the idea of properly basic beliefs. These are all part of a foundationalist view of reality.

It is hard at first blush to see how Nietzsche allows for any notion of progress or development, but I suggest that for him one’s previous history of valuations prepares one to move more and more fluidly through new channels of construing, even as one transforms those ‘foundations’ in process. — Joshs

I'm not sure I understand why FN says it is worth the trouble to seek self-overcoming and new value systems.

I wonder too if there is a foundational core at the center of the idea of overcoming in the first place - an implication that a self can be assessed/understood in order to be transcended, which also sounds suspiciously like a journey built around a kind of measurement system.

I think the modernist themes of your article are already familiar and not unlike much comment or journalism written in the mid 20th century. Where are you heading with this?

I am not sure about New Theology - most churches I knew since the 1970's were pro-science and viewed the Bibles stories as allegories. Biblical literalism is more of a contemporary phenomenon and attached to American fundamentalism or the Koranic literalism of Islam. And you are probably aware that reason is a key tool used by Christian apologists to argue for god - with a long history of Greek philosophy influencing church arguments (ontological and cosmological).

On the personal level, I am an infinitesimal speck of matter in an unimaginably vast universe, existing for less than a microsecond compared to the lifetime of a star. If I lack a deep self or my deep self doesn’t survive death, then my existence seems as ephemeral as a water fountain’s spray, as meaningless as a soap bubble. — Art48

This is a standard trope we often read. But apart from being a rhetorical device, does it get us anywhere? You could also reverse this idea, as other commentators have done, and argue how special, how extraordinary and improbable it is that on this tiny spec of the universe, conscious life exists - it must be by design, given the odds against it. And each person has a chance to shine brightly and transform the lives of others before they move into the ineffable journey of transcendence. Or whatever. :wink:

the continued search for truth. — Art48

Maybe you could clarify this point. What do you mean by truth? Or are you referring to the search for meaning?

Thanks - it just seems the obvious question to pose. Personally I am not a spear carrier for 'foundations'.

A bit of a change in direction: what differentiates in their lyrics' message country music from the blues? The musical style is obviously different, that I wish to divorce from the comparison. Strictly the words. Are there significant differences between the lyrics of country music and the blues? — god must be atheist

I don't generally listen to music with lyrics and I dislike the aesthetics of rock music, which I have never listened to except under sufferance. But I would venture most pop music is generally about celebration or consolation and so there is tremendous overlap in functionality between genres. What differs is the style, competence, sincerity, lyrical power and complexity.

There's nothing I can't find in Mahler or Beethoven (and jazz, Dexter Gordon, Charles Mingus) and when I do venture out into song it will be blues artists like Muddy Waters or John Lee Hooker, Sony Terry and Brownie McGhee. But in general, the more intense the blues is, the more cheerful I feel. The only music which depresses me is over produced 1980's rock... but only because it is grating and reminds me of a piss-poor decade.

His superman doesn’t represent a more advanced intelligence but the awareness of self as self overcoming. Self-overcoming is the endless replacement of older values by new values. The new values aren’t ‘better’ than the older ones, they’re just different. — Joshs

I have limited interest in Nietzsche, but this accords with my understanding. My only question is why bother with this overcoming (and endless change) if there are no improvements and no foundational narrative underpinning the 'journey'?

He's an eyewitness to what the earliest Christians believed. — Marchesk

I understand and you are correct, but my point addressed the gospels and the events/myths that inspired a religion, not the actual religion.

Sure, but whatever claims Paul makes, he was not an eyewitness and didn't write the gospels.

A priori truths are an exception because they’re true by definition - the textbook example being that you can say of a bachelor that he’s an unmarried man. Even though it’s a trite example, the principle has broad scope, including (Hume would argue) mathematics and all those things we can know a priori, that is, on the basis of logic not experience. — Wayfarer

I get it and within this hints of idealism.

One analogy that comes to mind is a programmer for a simulation or as video game-there are "rules" that exist within the game to the players but the developer can choose to disable them to change them to achieve a desired outcome at any point. — Paulm12

Nice analogy.

In this case, would you also hold that religious fundamentalists who believe that those they are preaching to could spend eternity in hell are also activists in a similar sense? — Paulm12

Sure, if you count religious activity as activism. But they would say the were doing apologetics, activism generally being secular.

I think I understand the point that you're trying to make. With that being said, the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s). But I don't think the particular issue is the fact that the claims are unsubstantiated. The issue is that the behaviors themselves are harmful (and like you point out, both plenty of other religious people and nonreligious people speak out about this).
I say this because I tend to fall onto the side of having difficulty substantiating any (objective) moral claims. Yes I do believe they exist, but I don't think I'd really be able to provide evidence as to why they exist or why someone should adopt them. — Paulm12

I hear you - lots of direction one could go with these points. I would hold that there are no good reasons to accept the premise god/s exist. And even fewer to establish that you know what god/s want - their will and views on morality.

So any claims made to be following god's will are based on three layers of dubiousness - that we accept the existence of god; that we accept the existence of a particular god; and that we know the views of that particular god. I think this is unreasonable.

I don't think we can demonstrate that moral claims are objective. They are intersubjective agreements held by communities (with outliers and dissenters) based on empathy and cooperation and they serve to support the preferred social order. That does not make them pointless. Traffic lights do not convey truth, but they provide a valuable tool to make roads predictable and much safer.

the theist can counter by saying their religious claims are substantiated from their religious experience(s) — Paulm12

Not a great counter argument, however, since this is hardly a reliable tool for justification or reliability and it could readily be argued the conflicting 'experiences' of other believers cancel each other out. One person's Jesus tell us her 'fags' are to be condemned. Another person's Jesus holds up a rainbow flag...

The topic I’m still very interested in studying in greater detail is the significance of Kant’s ‘synthetic a priori’ and the application of all of these ideas to the subject of metaphysics. — Wayfarer

If you can get back to us with a good brief summary of this matter, please do. Some years ago I spent time with this but, not being an academic, found it slippery. Silly question perhaps, but if god is understood as a necessary being, is god a putative example of synthetic a priori?

As you said, I think it really comes down to whether one believes in God (the sort of God who would intervene) a priori. — Paulm12

I think this is essentially the nub of it. I don't understand why people would seek to examine miracle stories rationally or scientifically. If Yahweh or Allah are real then reason and the laws of physics are irrelevant to miracle narratives, right? Isn't that the point of such tales?

Nice and very useful. Where's that Derrida extract from, Joshs?

But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

I generally take the view that this is in the eye of the beholder. But in general if a religion is making claims about the nature of reality (on ontological and epistemological grounds) they are open to philosophical argument. Remember just defining religion is almost impossible. In fact, religion expert and writer Karen Armstrong has said it is impossible to define it.

In the bookshops in my town, religion and atheism share shelves, no issues.

In a sense, the evangelical nature of the new athiests (which to me are more antitheists than atheists) are a very interesting parallel to evangelical religions. — Paulm12

I think people often point this out. But for me their work is better understood as activism. Which could be about race or poverty, or in their case theisms.

I generally see the work of Dawkins and co as fundamentalist busting - be they Christian or Islamic fundie views.

seem contradictory to me. Maybe you can assert that atheism is the view that god claims are meaningless (in a similar way to how moral non-cognitivists assert that ethical claims have no truth value). But if you assert that religions cause harm, then religious claims (and thus claims about God or gods) has the capacity to hold (in this case) negative worth. — Paulm12

The ideas are not contradictory but are interrelated. God claims are meaningless is one idea. Religions founded on meaningless claims (which cannot be substantiated) hold views and influence social policy in a manner which many consider to be harmful - views on women, gays, abortion, education, etc. Note the strong Evangelical support of Trump... So we have the situation wherein lives are being influenced (often in negative ways) by ideas which are supported by appeals to god (and are often antithetical to other Christian believers).

How would you describe Rorty's project - post-modernism?

He thought Derrida was just being a trickster, and completely missed the complexity and rigor of his philosophizing. — Joshs

Care to speculate on why he misread or deliberately reconstructed Derrida in this way?

Knowing that it's also worth knowing there are 2 kinds of Atheism existing today:
1. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist and it doesn't care about God, something not worth discussing any further by such people (true atheism)
2. Atheism which claims God doesn't exist but with firm belief it's so and desire to spread the word about God nonexistence. (this is a form of religion, strong belief there is no God and desire to get followers) — SpaceDweller

Elric who wrote the OP was banned a week ago.

Some tweaks to your ideas.

Firstly there is no 'true atheism' - this is as erroneous as claiming there is one true Christianity, or one true American.

Many atheists these days simply argue that they don't accept the claim that god/s exist. The evidence is unconvincing. They do not say there is no god. In the same way we might say we don't accept the claim Bigfoot exists, but we don't need to say it does not exist. Ditto the Loch Ness Monster.

Atheism is simply any view that holds that god claims are worthless. But an atheist could be a secular humanist or believe in ghosts and astrology. It's only about a god claim, nothing more.

Some atheists think that religions cause harm - Hinduism, Islam, Christianity - faiths all try to change the world via laws and social policy. Many atheists think this is harmful. This is why they sometimes work to educate the community about god claims. Is it about gaining followers? The word follower is wrong because atheism doesn't follow any teaching. It is an 'unteaching'.

Fairness is valued by us, and if it comes about, that is as a result of our efforts. — Banno

And since we are made in God's image, God must be fair....

Sorry, just thought I'd offer a glib and bullshit argument to fit in with some of the others. :yikes: :razz:

i. created nature wastefully indifferent and ravaged by gratuitous suffering
and/or
ii. created us sick but commands us to be well
and/or
iii. eternally punishes us for our temporal crimes — 180 Proof

iiii. proffers us his will obliquely via oral traditions written down by men, which are copied and translated and copied and translated and peddled by gatekeeping preachers who interpret God's will in contradictory ways, so we are left to work out what He actually wants without Him as much as showing up to say hi.

Yeah, God's a fuckin' righteous peach.

:up:

nothing at all of reading between the lines. — L'éléphant

Just out of interest, what do you think Joshs has missed?

Surely you don't think Rorty is a naturalist at the basic level? — Constance

Digression - isn't it the case that Rorty is controversially a part of the pragmatist tradition? I know he is described as a neo-pragmatist, but isn't he more of a post-modernist?

You were looking forward to making more money as promotions usually involve raises and you were looking forward to living the kind of lifestyle you can live when you make more money which you would've been doing had you got the promotion, and you don't get the promotion. You had all these hopes to do all the stuff that I mentioned above and now those hopes are dashed. So is that a loss? — HardWorker

Rejection (already a value laden term) is complex and could be understood from multiple perspectives. Which version you settle upon may say a lot about your broader sense of self and your relative psychological fragility. If 'rejection' is painful to you, it might be because a lot more is going on than mere rejection.

You might see rejection as an ontological threat, as a negation of self - you are worthless and undeserving. You might see rejection as failure - you have let down yourself or family. You might see rejection as a personal attack - your boss is deliberately fucking with you. You might see rejection as a failure of preparation - you needed to try harder. You might see rejection as pay back - you should have been more faithful to god. You might see rejection as a subversion of the natural order - you had an expectation to be given that job. You might see rejection as an opportunity to enhance your skills - to learn and grow. Etc...

In other words, rejection is generally understood in the context of a broader worldview and temperament. I suspect that rejection is most painful to those with inflexible and judgemental world-views.

Many people claim to witness Jesus’ miracles, and their stories often line up. If that is the case, then there is evidence that makes miracles probable. — lish

That's inaccurate. There are no known eyewitness accounts of Jesus. We know the gospels were written decades after the dates for Jesus (Mark being the earliest) by anonymous sources and were oral traditions copied, translated, copied and translated. It is only tradition that allocates names to the gospels. Many Bibles even acknowledge this in the notes section of the NT.

Miracle stories and the story of the resurrection are myths that coalesced around a figure who probably did live. Myths frequently coalesce around religious figures, so that's not unusual. We can take the miracles described in the Koran as another example.

I suppose I'll concede that. — Wayfarer

Whilst simultaneously appreciating the appalling nature of such thought systems, perhaps?

What counts as a correct answer to ontological questions? — Jackson

He's been banned. Gone.

So I avoid prejudging you, what are you here for? — Tom Storm

The problem is Randians often come across as evangelists, with glib talk and ready made phrases that resemble the approach of Christian apologists sharing the good news about Jesus/objecitivsim. You wanna save us, right? So I avoid prejudging you, what are you here for?

What is objective reality?

Is it possible for individuals to perceive and agree upon objective reality? — Elric

We seem to be doing pretty well agreeing about reality already. The precise nature of this shared exercise we call reality has been an open question throughout history.

Does objective reality pose requirements for human survival, for example, in order not to die you have to eat, and in order to eat you have to produce something? — Elric

Not sure exactly what you are asking. If the question is, do we die if we don't observe certain facts about our situation, the answer is clearly yes.

Does it respect objective reality, and does it require the subjective individual to behave in a consistent, sane and logical manner based upon the facts of objective reality......rather than upon subjective whim, which is how most political structures attempt to function. — Elric

This is unclear to me. Are you asking whether the facts of our situation - the need to eat and have clean air, etc tell us something about what we should value in terms of a social order and behaviour? Sure it does.

I personally don't know what the word 'objective' ads to the idea of reality. By definition reality would not be subjective. But you can have a personal or subjective experience of reality, which seems to be what we all have. But in the end, no matter how baroque your metaphysics are, and how radical you think you might be, you still need to piss and eat...

Nice. It seems to be the case that at some time the West became fixated by measuring/quantifying things and jettisoning other experiences. But perhaps part of this was a retreat into materialism because it offered a distinct territory and safe haven from a homicidal church which claimed total control/gatekeeping of all other domains.

and all our metaphysics are merely human creations or at best "co-creations" (whatever that could be thought to mean), — Janus

Metaphysics is not my thing, so apologies. That said, my understanding is that our metaphysics amounts to a collaboration between ourselves and what it is we describe as reality. We create the measuring systems, the tools, the very language of description. And as we learn or grasp more, our metaphysics shifts and evolves. So that's what I mean by co-created. Do we ever grasp the real? Isn't even the notion of real a human construct? Or am I now sounding like a stoner? Physicalism as understood by most scientists is a metaphysical position, but many, like Bernardo Kastrup, would hold that this is questionable in the light of some interpretations of QM,if nothing else, right?

For instance, consider what Othello would have needed to understand to avoid becoming a murderer. — frank

All he needed to know was that handkerchiefs are not really symbols of fidelity...:razz:

Sure.