Is violence ethical, and if so, when and where? — john27

Self-defence - but with minimal force.

Is that a bad thing? I think there are a whole lot more materialists. There is no difference between them. Except that materialists claim that consciousness is an illusion and panpsychists claim it's real, and material an illusion. Now who is right? I would say, both. — Raymond

I take the third option - no one fucking knows. :razz: I think I subscribe to mysterianism on consciousness (and some other issues). My point was simply it is in vogue, which is likely to mean people chose this option because it is cool not because they have thought about it.

"Is this person a genuine teacher or is he a charlatan?" is the wrong question. The right question is more along the lines of, "Whom am I looking for? A genuine teacher, or do I just want someone who will provide me with another fancy layer of denial and delusion?" — baker

I don't think this helps much. I think a lot of people start with this latter question and still end up with a charlatan - but I get your point.

Quick skim of his opening gambit. These days everyone seems to be a panpsychist. I don't sign into google or facebook.

My only point is that if someone is going to read a passage from the Bible, having some background into what it means is important. — Hanover

Even so, how do we tell what it means? New Testament example - I was talking to a Catholic priest friend of mine yesterday about Jesus throwing out the money changers from the synagogue. I asked him if this was an example of Jesus as human, loosing it - a reaction based on dualistic thinking. He thought for a moment and then said - "Depends upon whether you think this actually happened and if you wish to take it literally." He's more of a Platonist who sees the stories as allegory.

I think it is futile to imagine we can arrive at what these old books mean. It will always be about communities of shared interpretation and radical re-interpretations and crazy outlier interpretations. A hot mess.

Calling someone a naïve realist is an insult in some places. In other words holding such a view you may be seen as an unsophisticated yokel, with an untheorized, common man's erroneous understanding regarding the nature of reality. Unless you are John Searle... :razz: Of course, no matter what position you take on this philosophically, the moment you go out into the world you become a naïve realist no matter what...

:up: 'You won't get it' often means the person doesn't want to face a different worldview challenge. Ironic that you won't get it if you don't exist. You may already have won the argument. Solipsism can provide people with a kind of safety.

Forget all the complex metaphysical arguments. It's long been a thing for disenchanted young males to conclude that life is either nihilism or solipsism. Sometimes it's just a stage. And sometimes they get stuck with there for years. It's not really possible to talk people out of these kinds of closed belief systems. Given they are largely positions of faith. Often the belief meets a need and helps them avoid personal responsibility or it's used as escape from some trauma.

Civilised societies realise that looking after other folk is sometimes worthwhile even if it does not serve one's own interests. — Banno

Amen, Brother. :up:

it's worth noting the argument that 'Many pagan, Jewish, Christian and Muslim philosophers from Antiquity to the Enlightenment made no meaningful distinction between philosophy and religion,' whereas on this forum, and in today's culture, it's almost universally assumed that they're at loggerheads. — Wayfarer

Of course, I took this as read. I was applying the term very loosely and from our perspective. I guess it might have been more accurate to say these figures were not working towards founding a new religion.

Canonical texts: Homer, Dante. Shakespeare. Goethe, Walt Whitman, other religious texts, texts with a long historical tradition of interpretation. — Janus

And verkakte Star Wars movies.. :gasp:

A thoughtful response. It seems to me that while we can adapt the word enlightenment for a range of potential meanings, it does seem to sit more rightly with notions of ultimate reality and transcendence.

You mention Kant and and Hume. I see no reason why a philosopher couldn't be enlightened. The Buddha and Jesus were philosophers first before becoming the source material for movements in their name.

I recently saw a 2007 interview with Dr Hubert Dreyfus, the great Heidegger scholar. He considers H to be possibly the greatest philosopher 'of all time'. Enlightened? Well if Kant is then... Yet there is the Nazi Party membership issue and Heidegger's belief in Hitler. What do we do when one of the smartest philosophers of all time (debatable, sure) buys into possibly the most evil 20th century movement? Dreyfus says he can't find the words to explain it.

Well, for a layperson like me, it tells me not to confuse genius with sagacity or decency. A lesson we need to re-learn periodically. So I keep coming back to virtue as being a key element of enlightenment - if we are going to accept this loosely understood doctrine as a phenomenon we might encounter in the world.

Sure, that's the standard physicalist view of enlightenment - a period of time and an approach to epistemology. I mentioned this in the OP. And, of course, as I wrote, the Enlightenment (big E) is hostile to the idea of enlightenment (little e) - which is the subject of this thread. But I don't think we can consider a person who has shrugged off supernatural beliefs enlightened. I think the idea also needs to incorporate some notion of wisdom or personal sagacity. I have met too many atheists who are stupid, judgmental, foolish, apes. :smile:

:up:

So I was merely playing on Agent's wording and making no proclamations about truth. And I hate to break it to you - there are multiple potential definitions for ignoramus.

Is perspectivism self-refuting? How would we demonstrate that the metaphysical underpinnings of this view do not apply to itself? Why would we let perspectivism off the hook when we don't let other examples of self-refuting ideas of the hook, like logical positivism's verification principle?

Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset was also known for perspectivism and as I understand it took a phenomenological approach.

If we take the view that there is no such thing as 'the true' then what do we have? Conventional opinion has it that we have to make our own meaning. But even if you believe there is a capital T truth, your 'take' on this truth will be perspectival. To me it seems unavoidable even if you believe in the foundational merits of a grand narrative like Platonism or Islam. Even within religious traditions people don't agree on dogma and doctrine. Everyone has a subjective reading of their 'truth'.

I had a look at the reconstructions, they weren't of any use to me. See how you go.

Skeptic: Someone who knows he knows nothing.
Ignoramus: Someone who knows nothing. — Agent Smith

Skeptic: Someone who pretends they know nothing but acts as if they do.

Ignoramus: Someone who pretends they know something but acts as if they don't.

The truth is located in the behaviour.

The central theme of all such Hollywood productions: AI gains self-awareness. — Agent Smith

I think the central theme is AI becomes human - the great source of fascination and horror since Mary Shelly's monster. Deep down, one great fear is that if being human can be artificially manufactured by mere technology then perhaps we are not so special.

My understanding of Scorates, if located in a Platonic tradition, is that all knowledge of truth goodness and beauty is already there for us waiting immutably in the Logos. It can be reached though an awaking, perhaps with the right rhetorical engagement, hence the importance of dialogues.

I think there are a range of robot modes available to humans - it comes in many guises and variations.

I would certainly be curious to know what your stance would be after being exposed to reconstructions. — thaumasnot

I'd have to see an example in action. Much of what you write is highly complex and I am not sure I understand your intent.

For instance, I don't understand this:

Reconstruction is only of the medium-specific narrative. The narrative aspect stresses not details/aspects in isolation, but how they are leveraged within a composition, how they fit together. — thaumasnot

I don't understand this paragraph:

. The cliché is informative, but a cliché nonetheless. It has a characteristic quality of contingency that makes you question how essential it really is to enjoyment. You can, as a mind game, attribute various authors to the content, and see that it works the same way as when the “real” author is involved: the chosen author colors the work uniquely, but its impact on our experiencing of the content (as opposed to the appreciation of its meaning and context) is limited and diffuse. I call this method of assessing the relative merits of conjecturing the inconsequential conjecture test. It can be applied to any feature of the mosaic, including meaning, historical significance, virtuosity, emotionality, etc. — thaumasnot

On reflection, what I tend to enjoy most is reading how a critic's tastes and views interacted with the text, rather than an attempt at objectivist understanding. I like it best when a critic has an angle on something I hadn't considered. I like celebrations of taste and personal experience - as long as the reviewer has a good mind and a rich command of language. So I may not be of any use to you

I went through the 1980's reading a lot of film crit and literary crit theory - none of it helped me much. But I did love film reviews written by Pauline Kael.

How do you explain the consistency with which religious/spiritual people don't act on what they preach?
How do you explain that when conversing with so many religious/spiritual people, there is a palpable contempt or hatred, sometimes blatant, sometimes just under the surface on their part? — baker

To be fair this applies to many (if not all) areas of human behaviour not just religion. The same thing happens in most organised value systems - especially politics - where people regularly betray their ostensible principles. There's a reason there's a word for hypocrisy...

The kinder explanation for this would be that those folk are stuck in dualistic thinking and divide the world into winners and losers, with scorn and hatred constantly on the boil. In other words, their spirituality is shallow and ritualistic and they are unable to partake in the good or the true.

The fact that someone can be one's guru and another's charlatan just goes to show that there is no objectively determinable fact of the matter about whether anyone is a guru or a charlatan. — Janus

Or does it just say that determining the difference is very hard?

Yes, that was my angle. I always want to hear the best possible defence of a position different to my own if I can find it (and if I can understand it :gasp:).

I know he reads the originals in Greek and is a Platonist, so certainly will divide some people. I personally find this useful because I am interested to read from someone with full commitment to the philosophy. The paper was highly accessible in terms of his use of language so I may check him out further.

It's a fascinating area and my most acrimonious discussions with others over the years have not involved religion or politics, but art and how it can be understood and assessed.

The OP seems to be working towards trying to capture the uniqueness in a work that may have been missed by conventional means of discussing works. I think this has merit. But to me this will often be a side dish to the main course. In some art what makes it 'unique' might be the least interesting aspect of that work.

So, I would argue that Aquinas is, in his own way, a representative of the philosophia perennis. Perhaps one of the last outposts, by virtue of his relationship with the institution which preserved and carried forward his ideas. (I'm not writing this as a Catholic, by the way.) — Wayfarer

This is certainly a healthy subject at present. I recently saw an interesting discussion about this aspect of Platonism featuring Dr Jim Madden from Benedictine College. Incidentally, the work of Platonist scholar Dr Lloyd P Gerson keeps coming up in discussions I have read. I just read Gerson's paper - Platonism Versus Naturalism intriguing, even to a layman. Any views on him?

Well written perspective but I confess it was long and detailed and I struggled to understand some of your specifics. But it's good to see this kind of content.

I've ususally drawn a distinction between criticism and reviewing.

A review lets us know how someone (the reviewer) felt about the quality of a work and why. I read film reviews to work out if I should go and see a specific film. Generally, people seem to decide upon which are their favourite reviewers and take their assessments more seriously than others. It's as much a relationship with the reviewer as anything else. In recent years it has been fashionable to hate on reviewers as gormless twats. Some people go to see every film that reviewer X hates - a kind of reverse recommendation.

In a review I don't want to know much about the work at all, just an overview of the themes, subject and cast and then some salient reasons why we should care (or not).

Criticism is different - it explores the work in depth and often will not make assessment about merit. It might explore some specific aspect of a work - for instance the use of native American myth and art in Kubrick's movie The Shining. Criticism helps us to see what we may not have seen without assistance. Some criticism might also explore why a work has been valued in the past and explore the various interpretations.

For my money the key fact about art is in the aesthetic experience - there is always a risk in analysis that such an enterprise may rob a work of its reason for being and miss the point. This process can be like people with no sense of humour trying to explain the punchline of a joke.

Generally however I want value judgements from my reviewing. It's the main reason I would read a review. From criticism, what I want is further information to enrich my understanding of a work. I think you are aiming at the latter.

:clap:

And finding foundational truths within the objective domain is frustratingly difficult. — Wayfarer

Some might argue that we didn't just kill god, we killed truth, beauty and goodness.

OP, seeing as how religion is so complex and each individual’s religious experiences and belief system is so varied and we can’t fully understand them, wouldn’t it just make more sense to judge people by their actions? — laura ann

Well yes, but there's also a bigger picture - we could also take the view that religions unexamined and not held to account may readily lead to bad decision making and primitive reactionary social policy - look at countries where religions officially persecute minorities for god. A constant vigilance is necessary because barbarism lies just below the surface of us all, with religious ideas regularly acting like an aphrodisiac for deficient actions.

I don't see that there is much difference between this and theists disparaging Daniel Dennett, say, for his eliminativism, and making a range of pejorative observations about his idiocy and the negative impact of those and other physicalist beliefs on truth, human flourishing and spirituality.

Misogyny is a bannable offence -- but only if declared by men?
General misanthrophy is okay, but not misogyny or misandry?

Hating Muricans is okay, hating Africans is not okay? How about Asians?
Hating blacks is not okay, hating whites is okay?

And so on. Where's the line? — baker

There is no line - how can there be? Determining what is acceptable to a site by mods is not a science but an interpretive art.

What are you really getting at? It appears you are looking for rigid categories of unacceptability because your sense of fairness has been pinged by mod decisions. You've noticed that some objectionable ideas are allowed and some are not and there doesn't seem to be a measurable line for determination. I think this may be unavoidable. I recall Emerson's aphorism - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

:up:

People who are in the position to voluntarily abstain from some worldly creature comforts aren't actually renouncing anything yet, even if it externally looks that way. — baker

I agree, In my case I am not renouncing anything, just doing without stuff. I prefer it that way. Of course I am but a vulgar physicalist and it's is just a passing phase of 30 years, so people might be right to speculate it's merely a hipster posture I might reverse at any time. :razz:

It's the old question about what experience might add to knowledge. As you may remember the old thought experiment Mary's Room explores something of this.

Personally in my own experience real life always adds something I was unable to derive through reason, but it may well depend on the nature of the experience. If enlightenment is a real thing then only experience of it will count. Ditto being able to hear or even something more quotidian like poverty. But many mundane affairs are probably fairly easy to explore imaginatively without being immersed their actuality.

Nice. But no matter how vast the intellect, a person probably always wonders what lived experience adds to knowledge. It's an old conundrum, hey? Even the super rich Wittgenstein kind of renounced luxury and material possessions, along with the company of other people choosing to live in monk-like simplicity and solitude for a period. Russell talks about Wittgenstein's ascetic cast of mind. Could he not have achieved the same end of using his powerful mind?

Good book on option 2 -Against Nature by Joris-Karl Huysmans. I believe it was Oscar Wilde's favourite novel.

What's wrong with believing in a God without evidence and taking it as a starting point of your worldview. — Eskander

I lack a sensus divinitatis, so I can't take the idea of gods seriously. Please feel free to believe in gods without evidence, most people who believe do just this. It makes no difference to me.

I don't see how nihilism as a philosophy is practical, it leaves you with nothing. "Life has no meaning", now what ? Where do we go from here and is it even possible to give meaning to your life ? — Eskander

Few people get stuck on nihilism. Humans are meaning making creatures. We can't help it. The only meaning anyone gives their own life the one they pick subjectively. Doesn't matter if that be Allah or capitalism. In other words, all people base the meaning of their life on a subjective rationale which they believe works. Generally people are too busy with family, friends, work and hobbies for nihilism to be a sticking point.

Faith relies on trust. — Banno

Not sure how relevant this is but I generally draw a distinction between faith (belief without good reason) and reasonable confidence in, for instance, a plane's capacity to fly and land without crashing. I personally never use the word faith because of its religious associations and how believers will often make asinine claims such as - 'but you have faith in science' etc.

I don't believe there are god's or that there is any meaning to life - except for the one you make yourself and for decades have practiced a form of minimalism (which stops short of asceticism). I take the view that objects own you, not the other way around. They are an unnecessary distraction. By choice I own minimal belongings and always look to cut back further. I know several atheists who hold a similar jaundiced view of materialism.

The argument goes that we should judge Fritz only by his actions and not by his beliefs. — Banno

I thought Heidegger's first name was Martin...