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.

I was not talking about the cause of natural selection, I was talking about the fact that people always assume evolution is the secular person's first cause myth. That would be abiogenesis.

With evolution the question is usually but what caused life? The evolutionary process is a piece of piss next to that question. Most people assume evolution has a cause narrative built into it, but it doesn't.

Evolution is still a theory as it has no causation narrative that is sufficient to explain what's happening. — Shwah

As I understand it evolution was never about cause, it's about natural selection. Abiogenesis is about cause (or the lack thereof).

But what if God cares about ALL creation equally: the man AND the cancer cell, the Lisbon Earthquake of 1755 AND the shift of tectonic plates, the comet AND the dinosaurs. — Art48

Can you make this coherent? There is no consistent pattern, so how would one demonstrate god cared equally for each? Sometimes cancer kills a 2 year-old child. Sometimes the kid wins. What happened in each case?

Also, what kind of weak-arse god would not find a way to have both an earthquake and no casualties? Favoring inanimate objects over beings with souls sounds perverse. :razz: Would not a god making such choices be worthy of scorn?

Very nice. I've generally found that 'cause' is one of those words so beloved of apologists and their cosmological arguments. I rarely see it elsewhere, except when people are talking about wars...

Is cause something more like a necessary relationship?

Wouldn't it be better to jettison the whole unctuous concept of
evil? — Joshs

Wash your proverbial mouth out! What would political and religious discourse be without prejudicial and unhelpful notions of evil all over the place? God, Joshs, next you'll have dogs and cats openly living together.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I have nothing against your impulses, I'm just always curious when people say they have arrived at any clarity in philosophy.

So I would need to study this more, but isn't say, Derrida just correct that language forms our understanding of the world, — SatmBopd

Derrida is way more complex, but I am no authority. D was very engaged with N and there is overlap.

Furthermore, isn't much modern science just science for science's sake? — SatmBopd

I wouldn't have thought so. There's no science funding in this. Do you have examples?

I think Postmodernism throws a wrench in our understanding of truth — SatmBopd

So does N. A lot of PoMo was influenced by N. N says there are no truths, just perspectives and interpretations. Remember N is anti-foundationalist. So is PoMo

but as a case of building a new (and hopefully better) value system for everyone. — SatmBopd

N wasn't interested in building new approaches for everyone. He tended to hold that people were sheep and dimwits. He wanted new values but how this relates to betterment of humans I think is unclear.

The million dollar question that Nietzsche didn't even fully answer to my knowledge. This is the pursuit I am considering trying to undertake, but obviously only if it's worth it. — SatmBopd

I'm not sure how the car example relates to N. N would probably have said that the self-driving car should protect whomever he loved/regarded most.

Morality is created by humans to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order. Any debate on what is good or bad generally relates to how we (or others) visualise what the social order its values look like.

Like if all artists and all scientists went about specifically trying to celebrate human life instead of merely "seeking knowledge" or "personal expression" or other vague and aims that aren't to extensively thought out. — SatmBopd

This does not match my understanding of science or what science should be. Science is generally focused on solving problems. It is generally not undertaken merely for kicks or for aesthetic pleasure. Once you start to dictate what art or science should be you're on the fast track to becoming Joseph Stalin.

And there is another problem - who sets the standard for and articulates what 'celebrate human life' looks like? Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler also celebrated human life, they just did it in ways anathema to a lot of other people.

What do you think N tells us about how we can settle disputes about morality between other people?

Not at all. This was one of SJC's memorable contributions - the proposed separation of the religious from the scientific.

Will this see us revisiting the old non-overlapping magisteria as advocated by Stephen Jay Gould?

Such people don't go to concerts, they are not the audience. They are the performers. — baker

Why are they standing in the queue, then?

I suspect what you've written here says more about what you find interesting and not so much about Nietzsche. Personally I don't find the issues you raised especially compelling, but we all want different things from life, hey?

Art and Science are both interesting and beautiful pursuits, but it is necessary to articulate the situation of and goals addressed by Art and Science, unless you just want to be aimlessly going after the Art/ Science questions that just happen to interest you (which might be nice for you but useless for philosophy). — SatmBopd

Can you have another go at making this point? I'm not sure what you are saying N is saying.

- All of metaphysics is more or less inconsequential because irrespective of the constitution of the universe, as human beings we still need to address the question of how to interact with it. — SatmBopd

As written this sounds like a draft version of 'existence precedes essence' (Sartre). Personally I don't see how metaphysics becomes inconsequential just because one has to act. One also has to reflect.

- Only post-modernism and the associated questions about epistemology (of which Neitzsche is a grandfather), as well as Feminism (because Neitzsche was pretty sexist) seem remotely relavent to me — SatmBopd

Can you explain why? If you find the PM perspective useful, why is it more relevant than any other perspective? Could it simply be that it resonates because you live in the era where these ideas have currency and are fashionable? Are you tying this to N as a founder of postmodern anti-foundationalism?

All of morality and ethics is subordinate to Neitzsche, because understanding (and shaping) the underlying values which inform morality and ethics is better than asking disconnected questions — SatmBopd

What does this point mean? Just how is one meant to shape the underlying values which inform morality?

with Neitzsche that, in our secular society, we have a chance to take the value structures into our own hands [and so we should, because that’s cool and if we do a good job, more relevant to the human experience]). — SatmBopd

So how would this work in practice if everyone wanted to build their own value system? Can we accept those who think murder is a good way to deal with having to line up for concert tickets. If not, why not?

Does this get rid of the New Atheist movement? — Shwah

The New Atheist show was a marketing/publishing phenomenon, not a philosophical movement.

Words have usage not intrinsic meaning. Most atheists use the word to mean that they are not convinced any god/s exist. It is ususally not a knowledge claim.

Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

How could spirituality and science be describing the same thing? What is spirituality?

The average happiness score is 5.53 out of a maximum of 10 (see here). That's like scoring just a little above 50% in an an exam. That's an F in academics.Fail! — Agent Smith

Do we take a happiness poll seriously? That aside, looks like this one tells us happiness comes from a solid welfare safety net and political stability. It doesn't seem to be about reflecting on evil or facts in the world. It seems to say that happiness is local and politically determined.

1. If we really think about the world, our world, we must necessarily be melancholic (the amount of evil, on balance, exceeds the amount of good). — Agent Smith

You need to make the case that this true. You seem to be appealing to a form of common sense - that this must be how people would feel about the world. Nevertheless I know plenty of people who have every reason to think all is hopeless and yet they are cheerful.

So science cannot falsify or verify materialism: in fact, materialism is not a scientific hypothesis: it is a philosophical one. — Kuro

Nice and succinct.

I don't see were you have established this is a cliche. — Pantagruel

Sure it's a cliché, but I didn't establish it as one - that was done by every thinker or apologist from Nietzsche to Jordan Peterson. It's a very common 'go to' argument against atheism.

The commentary usually involves what Durkheim (for example) calls anomie, the sense of being alienated from any kind of substantive value..... — Pantagruel

That's the cliché, of course and it conveniently overlooks other factors. It reminds me of when I used to meet (some) old Germans, in the 1970's. They'd intone, "Say what you like about Hitler, but there was less crime, everyone knew their role and there was national pride.' Overarching foundational meta-narratives like religions bring unity and certainty, regardless of intrinsic merit.

With the decline of traditional religious values and the rise of industrial-scientific secular humanism. So if theism and atheism are both to be judged on their respective merits, then either one can be said to be on shaky ground. It depends on your perspective, doesn't it? — Pantagruel

Sure. And even if society is more 'stable' or 'harmonious' under a monolithic religion, it says nothing about the truth of the belief system. It makes sense that a kind of monoculture, where there is minimal dissent or skepticism, is going to appear more stable.

I was really impressed with Thin Red Line, and liked the New World — but over time I’m less impressed. Still, supposedly he’s a Heideggarian. — Xtrix

I figured. I'm not keen on serious 'issue' films. My sense is Heidegger is difficult enough to understand without further obfuscations and the interpretive impressions of some lofty auteur with a movie camera. :razz:

Suffering, then. I ask, what is it? A very good question. — Constance

Suffering is suffering. What more do we need? :wink:

To me, wherever you go, you run into Dostoevsky's Ivan: no God, no morality. Metaphysics is the only thing that can save morality, which is why I argue a support for moral realism. Not everything is a "language game". — Constance

I totally understand where you are coming from here. I'm sympathetic too. Personally I don't see god as realistic and I'll come back to this in a tick. For me morality is unlikely to be metaphysical - as far as I can tell morality is created to facilitate social cooperation in order to achieve our preferred forms of order. And maybe Rorty holds to a similar view. Generally communities come to a shared agreement about the core values. But I agree with you about the odd gap between Rorty's philosophy and the certainty of his 'real world' ethical positions.

Like Zisek (who I am not in the thrall of) I generally reverse the Dostoevsky idea - 'with god anything is permittable' - hence inquisitions, forced conversions, homophobia, holy wars, misogyny, slavery. There's not an egregious behavior available to humans that hasn't been justified by a direct appeal to god. Now I do understand that this has no bearing on whether god approves or not, it's just a comment on the alleged moralizing effects of theism.

As facts stand, philosophers have all but forgotten the original question (what is the good life?). They're now only interested in topics auxiliary to the main one viz., to reiterate, the good life. — Agent Smith

I think a key problem is that since modernism (probably) this construct of 'the good life' has been hard to formulate and believe in. It sits better with idealism as I see it, wherein the logos holds immutable all truth, goodness and beauty and these are as transcendental as the language of math. Today we find ourselves bickering: 'good' according to who?

But this does leave knowledge claims hanging out there. — Constance

Exactly. Having not read widely in his oeuvre, I have sometimes wondered how Rorty justified his strong social justice beliefs. He one said the the meaning of life is 'to make the world better for our descendants'. Do you have a sense of how he arrived at this logically?

I agree with your summary. In the end I guess it doesn't matter too much if students pursue Shakespeare or (insert canonical writer of preference). But I do wonder what might happen to critical thinking above and beyond the education debate. Will people have the skills to tell good ideas from bad ideas (however that looks in practice)?

What are these questions about? I'm not getting the picture of where you are. — Yohan

I'm not sure what you mean. I am asking questions about your position as I don't understand it fully, that's all.

Does not accuracy look like non-contradiction? — Yohan

You tell me? I don't know what accuracy means when it comes to philosophy. Accurate against what standard?

The analytic philosopher Rorty of course talks as if there is no problem with this (as I read through parts of his Mirror of Nature); but all of this, he insists, in the light of "truth is made, not discovered." He just thinks like Wittgenstein that there is no point is trying to speak about the unspeakable, for there is no unspeakable to speak of. — Constance

I think so. Rorty's neo-pragmatism is postmodernism and less mystical that Witty. Rorty's anti-foundationalist project seems primarily (and I only have general understanding of his work) to be opposed to what he sees are remnants of Greek philosophy - notions of idealism and absolute truth 'out there'. In Rorty's view humans are able to justify claims but can say nothing about Truth.

I doubt anyone ever began with high competence.
And I'd think the same about rigor.
One's amount of rigor depends on one's degree of caring about accuracy. Would you say? — Yohan

I don't think anyone ever said high competence is found at the start of any pursuit.

Rigor and accuracy are only assessed in relation to something external - a criterion of value. What would that be?

What does accuracy look like in philosophy?

It is the liberal tradition that has led to the hatred of tradition - "dead white guys". Individualism, autonomy, and equality have led to the idea that no one has greater moral or intellectual authority then I do. — Fooloso4

Indeed. Do you see a solution to this, or does it belong to the culture wars and the general malaise in Western culture?

I wonder if the era of the Great Conversation has ended and amounts to anachronistic liberalism in our postmodern, tradition hating culture? I'm sure the hardest thing to do these days is engage students. Better they watch a TV show and explore its themes and characters with interest than stare hatefully and blankly at a page of Shakespeare before zoning out. I never had a single teacher I cared for or who taught with any hint of inspiration or skill. As far as I'm concerned school only interfered with my education. I took an interest in reading and 'classics' only in the years after I left school.

The key to me is the motivation. Is one passionately seeking the truth, or just studying philosophy as a hobby or to make a living or reputation? — Yohan

I think this is certainly part of it. But this says nothing about competence or rigour. What exactly does 'seeking the truth' consist of in your view; how would someone go about this?

Have you seen any Malick films? — Xtrix

A few. Turgid and dull as I recall, except Badlands but it's been 30 years since I saw it. I hated Tree of Life...

Can a person be a (good) philosopher if they live in isolation from society, not reading philosophy works nor sharing their thoughts? — Yohan

I'd say it is unlikely, but who knows? Can you name an example?