However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. — Gnomon

Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. People using evolution as a creation story are wrong. Evolution explains diversity, not the question of what created life - abiogenesis - which remains a mystery. We know what the active ingredients of life are, but we are yet to determine how chemistry became biology. The first self-replicating molecule marks the beginning of evolution.

New Atheism became a marketing term in publishing after it was coined and seemed to resonate, for good or ill. It doesn't refer to a movement.

I never thought of it as philosophy as such - the writers already referred to are mostly fundamentalist busters. This seems to be much needed, as ever more literalist expressions of theism seek to influence education, legal and social freedoms. One only need to be recognise that the fastest growing version of Christianity in the world is evangelical to see the problem.

I speak of the dogmatic approach to living and thinking. Unquestioned rules and ideas. — Constance

I understand this and agree. But perhaps one can also be dogmatic about not being dogmatic and end up sinking in a quicksand of mutually opposed world-views.

to me the question, that is, the resistance that is posed by the possibility of an opposition, this needs to be free. — Constance

I don't understand this sentence.

but living in this "tension" of irony in which all things stand challenged and nothing sits too firmly, this is the essence of a free society. — Constance

Indeed. And it is the tension inherent in pluralism. It's very easy to have the semblance of order, stability and certainty if we are living in a theocracy.

But in terms of the way we stand at the receiving end of a body of determinative thinking, no. — Constance

Say some more.

Given that culture is literally built out of dissent. — Constance

Not speaking for Banno, but for me culture (for all its problems) is built out of cooperation and the overarching goal is to include as many stakeholders as possible. You can see that the significant problems of human existence - resource allocation, climate change, war, can only be successfully dealt with and remedied through cooperative ventures. If not, we are lost.

Philosophy is a radical extension of what it means to question an authority. Foucault: Am I being ventriloquized by history? Ever word I speak, after all, is learned, but have I assimilated language, or has language assimilated me? Assimilation here means in authority. — Constance

I can't disagree with this sentiment and it has, without the benefit of reading much Foucault, been my general approach.

But I do think that individualism is harmful, indeed, emphasis on individualism is one of the nasty things lurking in the background of much of the demise of what we might loosely call western culture. Failing to acknowledge our mutual interdependence has led to the peneary of our common wealth. — Banno

:up:

I always thought Cyberpunk was over exposed and that everything was footnotes to Blade Runner and William Gibson. It's really just the tropes of film noir overlaid with speculative sci-fi. I think those themes are definitely present (also the failures of capitalism and the state) from what I've seen, but the peak of Cyberpunk was 30 plus years ago, wasn't it? Do the kids still dig it?

How is causality different from determinism? — T Clark

No real idea. But given that cause can't be established for certain what legs does 'determinism' have?

presupposition, as Kant supposed, — Banno

Good point. I wasn't thinking Kant or transcendentals. I meant we hold the concept as an assumption and get on with things. We presuppose it works (pragmatically).

Any social concept you can think of has some hierarchical feature built into it, even if not explicitly so. — Constance

That's probably true. But I tend to work to minimize the inclination by not reinforcing hierarchies unless I can't avoid it. :wink:

Yes, I think you are right. It would be absurd to disregard 'causality' even if it hangs on custom or habit.

I am not philosopher but I have generally held that what we call science hangs on tentative models of reality that don't make proclamations of absolute truth. Ultimately we tend to take 'cause' as a presupposition.

Think of it as that cause does not play a part in physics, which inilvoevs more detailed analysis of functions rather than mere sequences of events; but that it is held by many to maintain a place in metaphysics, where it simplifies the philosopher's task by removing the need to follow the maths. You might notice even in this thread that folk's view on causation tends to follow their metaphysical prejudices rather than the physics. Physics, and the other sciences, just get on with it without having first to settle the many problems of causation. — Banno

Very useful and nicely worded.

I can't accept seeing people as "just animals". We are more than that. — dimosthenis9

Yes, you made that clear earlier. You might note I wrote 'humans are animals' not 'just' - this suggests your own hierarchical sensibilities on this matter.

Do animals have the human mental ability? Our fantasy, our critical thinking, our speech etc. And all that "Spiritual world" that our mind creates isn't what separate us from animals? — dimosthenis9

I've already said we are sophisticated animals. Sophisticated does not mean 'better'. I'm not sure what more we can make of this other than describing the attributes.

By becoming more Human than Animal. Growing your spirit reduces the animal inside us. Tames it.
Still most of our beliefs are more based in our animal nature than our spiritual one. — dimosthenis9

I can't say this works for me. I wonder if HB had this in mind. Humans are animals. No matter how sophisticated our thinking becomes we will be sophisticated animals. What does 'spiritual' mean to you? Are you suggesting that what separates human animals from other animals is a 'higher nature' founded in some kind of spirituality?

I would say being an authentic thinker is a higher evolutionary stage. — stoicHoneyBadger

Evolutionary? How so?

Sorry quick recap. When we are talking through Hume's problems of induction are we saying in summary (I'm looking for the right wording here) that the notion of causality is a custom acquired by experience and the principles of inference (from cause to effect) can't be demonstrated using logic?

Ok, so it sounds like you are saying authenticity matters and people who are original thinkers are better people than those who slavishly follow others.

Whether those are his concepts or he is enslaved by someone's else concepts. — stoicHoneyBadger

Hmmm. How does this make any substantive difference? Does it matter whose views they are if the person is fixed? Why use the word 'enslaved'? A homage to Nietzsche, or are you just going for a strong verb?

An original thinker with 'their own' concepts can be just as much of a rigid knob-jockey as anyone else. Incidentally, I'm not sure people develop their own concepts - they often borrow from more sophisticated sources as they get older. But not always.

It sounds like you have a kind of model of human development that privileges a hierarchical outlook about people's conceptual frameworks. It's still not clear to me what problem this is addressing or how it helps.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you — HardWorker

Only if that's how you construct your worldview - in terms of power relations. Personally I see reliance as an issue of mutual trust and positive regard. But it may depend upon the context. The notion of 'rely' and 'others' needs further clarification.

Not sure I agree with some of your conclusions. My bigger question is, how is this model useful?

So this is a chronological 'life journey' process along the lines of Jung's theory of individuation?

He believes those concepts to be the ultimate truth and is very
combative against anybody questioning their validity. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't think this is always the case. More likely they struggle to integrate and comprehend alternative concepts.

A person is able to generate his own concepts and build a coherent world view out of them. — stoicHoneyBadger

Not sure how often this would happen. How do you determine what amounts to a coherent worldview?

A person not only has his own unique world view, but is able to communicate it to others, creating his own schools of thought. — stoicHoneyBadger

I don't think this always happens. Or perhaps you are more charitable about the term 'school of thought'. Most people's beliefs systems probably end up being variations of the views of their parents/culture/peer group. Anger towards other views is more likely to arrive at this stage in a person's thinking - but not always.

You've just summarised my whole point in a vivid sentence. :victory:

I find a growing number of posts on this forum fall too easily into the realm of ambiguity posing as clarity. It is almost like asking for further clarity is met by annoyance above any genuine wish to engage is discussion. — I like sushi

The Orwell essay is famous and it was certainly compulsory at my high school and later at university in the 1980's. There is a criticism that Orwell's advice, if followed widely, would result in a dull, methodical prose style, but the general gist is true as far as political writing is concerned.

I suspect the problem with some writing here is not so much the lack of clarity in syntax, it is the muddled thinking. People often seem to struggle to express their ideas and it is often difficult to work out what is being argued. Not sure they are being vague with language, it seems more likely that their ideas are meagre.

I doubt that Orwell can help because the problem isn't use of English, the problem is conceptual. And I'd throw into the mix that ideas presented are often held together by fallacious thinking. Perhaps people haven't really worked out what it is they are trying to say. They feel something is true and they fumble around for words and concepts to make the case. But even using perfect grammar, simple sentences and vivd metaphors, the ideas would remain confused.

There's a whole separate category for bullshit, sententious and pretentious writing out of the academy.

Is Satan Evil or is Satan Praxidice andromorphized? — Agent Smith

Don't you know there ain't no devil, there's just God when he's drunk
- Tom Waits, Heartattack and Vine

Regardless, it has always both bewildered and sickened me how a person can throw a serious punch without any physical provocation. — FrankGSterleJr

I'm six two and 190 pounds, have a buzz cut and I used to hang out in bars. I've had a number of first punches thrown at me - not all of them connected. It's pretty much the reality of any 'street fight' approach. Get in quick and get in hard. I have occasionally had to throw the first punch in order to prevent a full fight from breaking out. I considered it a harm minimization approach. The guys to watch for are those who hit when your back is turned. Sure, it's best to avoid a fight if at all possible. This may mean leaving before things escalate but this is not always achievable. And then of course there are cowards who just hit people to see what happens.

Fair enough and I hear you. Thanks.

Not sure what point you are making there DG.

Isn't physicalism a metaphysical claim?

I think some of your instincts are probably correct. But I would say that solutions may be as a diverse as the human race itself. Christianity is but one potential path and not everyone (myself included) is able to accept its ideas (however these are interpreted) as useful.

Making the switch from atheism to spirituality or taking the reverse path are fairly common experiments people make in trying to live with themselves - for some a harder job than living with others.

I don't think our society is any sicker now than at any other point in history - how would we even demonstrate this if it were true? Human beings have always been deeply flawed it seems and when they use politics or religion to transform or 'heal' the world, they tend to violate rights in the process. Hence one of my favorite quotes by Milan Kundera - 'You build a utopia, pretty soon you're going to need to build a small concentration camp.' Personal journeys of transformation definitely seem less harmful.

Of course, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy said it first but I can’t help but quote him. If we really want to change the world then I think we need to start with a change in our own hearts first. This too, is what what communists and fascists get completely wrong. — Dermot Griffin

Then I guess your speculation that the world is a worse place now or that civilisation is evil is some sense is unlikely to be relevant to the project. Change yourself. :wink: Forget about the others...

Why, it has already happened… Civilization has made man, if not always more bloodthirsty, at least more viciously, more horribly bloodthirsty.” — Dermot Griffin

This is certainly a popular view. Personally I have seen no good evidence to think humans are more violent or cruel than in earlier times.

Yeah... and I keep thinking to myself, if cause is this fuckin' elusive, why even get to god?

All that is fine, but links to Heidegger should be taken with a grain of salt. — Xtrix

Do you imagine Yalom is mistaken in his understanding of Heidegger, or is he being somewhat deceptive in order to add some kind of prestige to his model?

This is taken asana nswerign the question as to why Buddhism is a religion but not Capitalism. — Banno

Hmm. what about the supernatural status of the market in the beliefs of neoliberalism? :razz:

Does the concept of religion refer to nothing? — Banno

Depends who you talk to.

Irvin Yalom is an existential psychiatrist at Stanford. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I know IY. Not sure if this is a response to my comments.

When we exist in the ontological mode—the realm beyond everyday concerns—we are in a state of particular readiness for personal change. — ZzzoneiroCosm

This?

We may want to claim something like that if A causes B, then in any case in which A occurs, B must follow; but a moment's consideration will show that not to be the case. It seems from SEP that the present thinking leans to probabilistic accounts rather than modal accounts; that A caused B means B will follow A on most occasions. But I share your concern that such an account seems unduly complex.

We might avoid sophisticated accounts with profound "philosophical explanatory power" if what actually occurs is no more that just "loosey-goosey causality."

So we have the traditional dichotomy. On the one hand we have the empiricist Hume puzzling over how it can be that we call one event the cause of another, when all we have are our observations of those events; and here sits the problem of explaining induction; how we move from a limited number of specific cases to a general law. On the other hand we have Kant supposing that we must already, a priori, have a notion of cause available to us in order that we bet able to attribute cause and effect.

Perhaps the error here is to suppose that there might be a way to firm up our talk of causes to anything more than a colloquial way of speaking, of a habit. — Banno

That's a useful and nicely written summary. It fascinates me that such an apparently simple concept could be a kind of trick of usage.

You seem to be seeing this as a self-improvement narrative. I wonder if that's what the OP was getting at.

But how do we shift from the everyday mode to the ontological mode? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I'd first need to be convinced that the two modes exist and that they are compartmentalised in precisely this way. From my own subjective experience, the ontological and the everyday don't feel separated quite this dramatically and I think the quotidian is often a prompt to consider deeper matters of being sometimes from an initial springboard of absurdity.

I think the idea of cause has a very strong, intuitive power. People in general think that the fact that events are caused is self-evident. I feel the attraction of that attitude. — T Clark

I agree and it seems clear to me that we are generally socialized to view the world as a vast realm of cause and effect. It's part of our 'commons sense' heritage.

First cause of life - I should have said.