I continuously think about these things and I just want to know other people's perspectives. If there is a chance to be relatively happy and cause minimal suffering in the world through living like a monk why would we not do it? Is it because temporary/materialistic pleasures (new cars, fancy computers, good food, sex) ARE NEEDED for some people's happiness? — Troyster

I'm content and I have no interest in monkish things. I am a minimalist and have no real interest material things (except that which I deem necessary to get by). I've held this position for 40 years, I think I am an accidental epicurean.

What I'm saying is that the unliftable rock contradiction doesn't mean God isn't omnipotent. — ToothyMaw

We agree on this. Generally when I speak with Christians on omnipotence they generally hold to the view that god is 'maximally omnipotent'. Which means that the impossible or contradictory isn't even in scope. It takes a special kind of fanaticism to hold otherwise.

From what I've seen, you meet those criteria pretty frequently. We don't need no stinking philosophers. — T Clark

Are there any philosophers on this site?

It doesn't, because if God cannot divest themselves of their omnipotence, they are not truly omnipotent. Unless it is impossible for god to do so? But why would it be impossible? No one is addressing that. — ToothyMaw

It's addressed by this;

↪ToothyMaw "Omnipotence" does not entail 'doing what's logically impossible to do'; that's an ad hoc, arbitrary assumption – magical fiat. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

And if you think differently then it is just a question of us holding different presuppositions. We differ. Which means we can move on.

Personally, I think the idea of omnipotence is incoherent to begin with, but for the purposes of these kinds of theoretical discussions I'm willing to play along, as far as it goes. :wink:

Excerpt of a recent post:
The most charitable definition of "omnipotence" I've found is this: the ability of (a) being to do anything that is not impossible, or self-contradictory, to do instantly (i.e. just by thinking) and / or which no other being can do. So "no", (an) "omnipotent" being cannot make something "too heavy" for it to move if that something is moveable; it can, however, instantly move (with a thought) anything which is moveable.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I think this nails it.

The stories within the Bible show us scenes of gore, rape, slavery, and so many more violent acts, yet Christians sit here and preach that we must do what the Bible tells us word for word. — Edward235

You may need to broaden your understand of how Christianity works in practice. I grew up in the Christian tradition and no one I knew, clergy included, believed the Bible to be literally true. It was generally seen as allegorical. It's something of more recent times that literal truth has been a fixation - hence the term 'fundamentalism' - a sub branch of the tradition which is generally more prominent in America.

The other thing to remember is that many hardcore Christian believers have never read the Bible and have only had a few passages picked out for them by preachers who insist on slanted interpretations.

Even the Bible literalists do not follow the Bible's commands. No one stones people to death for blasphemy or sex before marriage, not even the Southern Baptists. Many believers have a hard time remembering the 10 commandments, let along all the other details.

I not only agree with that but Ialso believe that they even do more harm than good. — Alkis Piskas

I manage psychosocial services in the area of mental health, suicide prevention and substance use - medication works for many people and it works well. But it's not for everyone.

In apathy, you have no feelings --except apathy itself, which can be barely called a feeling. (Actually, the word "apathy" comes from Greek "a-" (privative) + "pathos" (passion, feeling) => no feeling. There are no pills for that! — Alkis Piskas

Some would say there are no pills for depression. As someone who works with people who are living with depression, both treated and untreated, what you describes sounds exactly like what many of them describe.

Boredom --pathological one--is more like apathy. Nothing can interest you or make sense to you. It's close to death. Temporary, transient boredom is of course a totally different thing. — Alkis Piskas

To me that sounds like depression.

My thoughts in this regard are mainly in reaction to those who say there is no evidence for God. There is evidence, they just aren't convinced by it. That makes a big difference to me. — T Clark

I think that's correct. As an atheist I take this view too. I would even include scripture as evidence. How one regards or rates this evidence is a different matter.

I have been saying, without really thinking it through, that the experience of God is the evidence for God. — T Clark

I think this is a fairly widely held view - the evidence is embodied in the experience. My reservations with this as a crass naturalist, is what counts as experience of god? Without wanting to be glib, I have no doubt that members of Islamic State and the KKK have had experiences of God which help form their beliefs and actions.

Why boredom, especially? Wasn't he certain about fear or grief or anger or any other among of a host of feelings too? — Alkis Piskas

I guess there is a view held by some that most of what people do in life is just filling in time until you die. I've never quite understood what boredom actually means because the word seems to be an umbrella term used by people to describe a range of emotional responses that coalesce around a central idea of dissatisfaction. It also seems to be related to anxiety.

One of my favorite quotes is from Blaise Pascal: “All of man’s misfortune comes from one thing, which is not knowing how to sit quietly in a room”

Phenomenology is not an idealism or subjectivism , a privileging of mind over matter. It rejects both sides of this dualism in favor of a radical interaction. — Joshs

Does it actually 'reject' them as false, or is it the case that the phenomenological project explores other avenues?

That's why I started this thread here. But as I mention there, I think the real issue is collective action, coming together -- not so much ignorance of the problems. But that's arguable. — Xtrix

Probably accurate. But could we reignite the many groups which already exist in these spaces? Have they been so corrupted that they are not salvageable? We have unions here in Australia that could work well again. Lethargy seems to be a key problem. Genuine reengagement within existing systems would transform society, but many people think this is middle class masturbation and only a revolution will do.

It seems to me that a key problem for change is the view that the bad guys have already won and the situation is hopeless. That worldview seems to me to be one of capitalism's greatest protective factors.

:up:

Essentially it is unethical persuasion. — Average

How do we determine when it is unethical? Is advertising in general ok?

Could you give me an example? — Average

Don't have anything in hand, but in essence I think sophistry is a skillful argument put forward that looks convincing but is actually false. As per what you said below.

Maybe the example of some unscrupulous politicians and their political campaigns might illustrate my notion better. — Average

A lot of marketing and lying today is not presenting a skillful argument, it is much cruder and less rhetorical. It's often down to the use of images. E.g., 'Buy this product and you'll get laid.'

It's an interesting question. Perhaps, since you initiated the OP, you can define sophistry - but if it is just a synonym for organized deception, I'm not sure that the word is all that useful. I think sophistry generally refers to a clever argument designed to win a point by rhetorical deception.

You mentioned that it is a 'big problem in the modern world' - I still don't feel I understand how you mean. You mentioned televangelism. But is the problem there sophistry or religion?

Is sophistry just an old fashioned term for bullshit, perhaps? When someone is taken in by 'sophistry' is this a hallmark of a skilled persuader or is it a product of unsophisticated credulity?

I tried to give the example of the nazis but if I’m being honest the multi billion dollar industries you mentioned are good examples in my opinion. Edward bernays kind of turned sophistry into a science. But I’ll try to think of some good examples. Off the top my head I think that televangelists and mega churches might fall into this category. But there is also the question of psychological warfare and psychological operations to contend with. — Average

Ok The Nazi's are not really current - unless you are referring to the neos.

Is sophistry the issue? Or are you really talking about choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue? Maybe I'm wrong but I consider sophistry is a bit more subtle and nuanced.

Apart from the people who fall for conspiracies or evangelical religions - most people seem to be apathetic and uber-skeptical rather then credulous. They don't believe anyone any more.

I think that sophistry is a big problem in the modern world and I’m wondering how it should be combated. — Average

Care to explain? Can you provide examples?

I'm interested in how marketing seems to have superseded sophistry in taking false arguments and adding scientism, technology, research and public relations psychology to the mix.

Another common view of the subject - the Marxist critique of 'helping professions' I used to hold this view myself.

This way, people don't rebel against the system (they don't even see the system), but they just buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume. And capitalism, psychology, and psychiatry are happy, while the people are miserable. — baker

I think you need to work on this part of your argument. People actually get better, regain control and an ability to fight the system and if psychology is working, people are less miserable and more effective in life. Other than that, you summarised the anti-therapy type argument pretty well.

What are the barriers, if any, that prevent you from forming a political group, union, or even a strong social circle? — Xtrix

I don't know anyone who wants to form a political group, union or strong social circle (what is that, by the way?) The sorts of people who do tend to be monomaniacs and cranks, from what I have seen. You mention apathy as a barrier - I generally think a bigger problem is bewilderment - not knowing what needs to change or how to articulate problems/solutions to being with.

The evidence for a material mind isn't controversial, its an overwhelming deluge of reality. You brain is damaged or dies, your mind is damaged or dies. There is absolutely no viable alternative view point. — Philosophim

Possibly a digression - idealists - people like Bernando Kastrup - would not deny any of this and would maintain that matter is the illusion, not mind. For him and others, the brain and all matter is simply what mind looks like when viewed from a particular perspective.

Now to deal with this properly, we probably need to engage deeper with his ideas than this tiny fragment of his thinking, but the point I'm trying to make is that the question of brain is moot when we consider the metaphysical presupposition of idealism. It is the brain and physical things which need to be explained, not the other way around. I should add that I am not an idealist, but the argument is fascinating.

Our liberty from that is pretty romantic, isn't it? I suspect we don't understand things this way because of the Christian influence and enlightenment and Christianity oppose each other. — Athena

I'd say there is a difference between romanticising enlightenment and rationalising romanticism. :razz:

Nicely articulated.

I'm not sure I understand why this is an attraction for theists. I'm a theist too but I don't have a problem with a beginning without them gods. — EugeneW

I think mainly because the first cause or cosmological argument is an easy one to understand and make and enthusiastic Protestant apologists in the English speaking world have often adapted the Kalam cosmological argument to good results with the folks. 'Common sense' apologetics often do best.

Psychology and psychiatry take a dim view of humans. — baker

I think that is true some of the time. They are certainly a very popular target of hate in pop culture.

Doesn't seem self-evident to me but I know this is a commonly held view. I've seen many people - dozens - recover from depression using counselling and medication. But it doesn't work for everyone and can be ineptly done.

1. Because they get bored of the depression.

2. Because the treatments for depression they've tried are worse than the depression itself. — baker

Evidence?

There may be a human tendency to try to avoid the darker side, while mindfulness can bring about a greater awareness of such emotions and thoughts, as opposed to trying to avoid the existence of them. — Jack Cummins

Another perspective. I rarely encounter people who only look on the bright side or avoid the darkness within - I would have thought this was almost a lost attribute. What I overwhelmingly see is people who already consider themselves to be 'evil' or 'tainted' or 'bad' people and they are overly preoccupied with failures and resentments and festering inadequacies, moral and material.

How this impacts on mindfulness I am unsure. In the end, for most people mindfulness (regardless of the theory) boils down to just sitting still, trying not to obsess over things and being calm and non-judgmental about self. There's no question for me that in a task obsessed, 'you have to be doing something all the time' world, this can be helpful. We have forgotten the art of sitting still, clearing the mind and doing zilch. Controversial, but I sometimes think that smoking cigarettes gave us similar micro 'meditations'. Sitting still for 3 minutes whist having a smoke was often the only time of stillness people had in busy lives.

And a lot of the options have considerable overlap and could be both explained simultaneously. — Benj96

As a subject, the start of everything doesn't interest me much. I tend to think notions of beginnings and ends are human attempts to apply order to the reality we know. 'How it all began' is of almost no use to me in my daily life. But I understand the especial attraction of beginnings for theists. The absurd uncaused first cause still has a hold on folk who use it to prop up god's who must have something to do, or they recede into history.

No worries - and thank you for that reminder. I believe you are sincerely trying to work things out like many here.

I don't think there's much more for you to ask me. If you google intelligence and essentialism you will see a lot of material. Much of it more useful than anything I would say.

The question of intelligence seems to be important to men - over 40 years I have rarely heard a woman care much about it. The IQ score is like cock size for nerds.

Digression: I have known several genius level people with gifts so prodigious you want to weep for the rest of us. But do these gifts make the person happier or better adjusted? Not that I've seen.

This is not my view of intelligence. I’m trying formulate my view. I don’t have any position on the subject yet. — Average

Is it important to have a view on intelligence? I tend to think of some people as being adept or gifted in certain contexts. There's not much more I need to know. This notion of intelligence as a form of essentialism is a subject covering multiple domains and is contested by many. The efficacy of applied intelligence has featured in so many books and movies and journalism (from Hannibal Lecter to Elon Musk), that the notion is romanticized out of all proportion and is almost useless as a criterion of value.

How are Enlightenment values not Romantic values? — Athena

As I understand it, the Enlightenment was all about rationalism order and secularism - Romanticism was specifically a reaction against these strictures, a project wanting to restore emotion, spontaneity, subjectivity and enchanted thinking.

:up:

’m not interested in debating evidence. That’s like trying to parse the meaning of bible verses. Evidence is only intelligible relative to conceptual schemes. That’s the level at which I’d like to discuss this. — Joshs

That's a very interesting and useful perspective in all of this.

You guys can keep ignoring the research I've posted, but I'm going to keep walking away from this having to conclude you guys are not philosophically oriented, and are simply asserting things predicated upon your emotions. — Garrett Travers

I'm not following this discussion closely but for my money what seems to happen is people have already made up their minds what is true about consciousness and will only engage with ideas or 'evidence' which can be utilized to prove their point. I agree that emotions and aesthetic choices inform this process. Some people 'feel' the world they live in is more attractive and relatable with a god or a Schopenhauerian Will at the heart of it.

I thought I was agreeing with javi that understanding depression was complex.

Let me state very clearly and unambiguously for your benefit that clinical depression is very real — SkyLeach

Not keen on dogmatic rhetoric that sounds like you are trying to make me a gift of your wisdom. I know it's real and I have my views. And I agree that good treatment is not always provided and underfunded (I am not in America).

The reality that can be experimentally verified is totally irrelevant and nonsensical for who's not interested in it. — EugeneW

Hmmm.... Tell that to the Uighurs in Xinjiang. Not being interested in reality doesn't mean it can't harm or kill you.

:lol:

Smart people get it wrong a lot, you know. — RogueAI

No kidding... when I said smarter than me/you I was being ironic. I thought that was obvious. Sorry. Maybe we need an irony font.

Take it up with Searle - he's smarter than you too. I think his point is that the mind is a physical process of an organ (brain). He has a much more detailed account of this in his actual writings.