The OP makes me think of the reverse situation. Women want equality but that means a man doesn't need to get up and give his seat to a woman standing in a packed bus but women then brand the man as ignoble. What's up with that? If you like the rainbow, don't you have to put up with the rain? — Agent Smith

Where on earth do you live? I stand up for anyone who looks like they need a seat regardless of gender. I would not stand for someone just because they were female. Do people still do this? I haven't seen it for decades.

:up: Nice chatting to you.

Why is the default truth value for a proposition false? Is it though? Atheism? — Agent Smith

I'm not a philosopher, so this question probably has a correct answer unknown to me.

I don't think the default is false - it has to do with the nature of the proposition. If you tell me that you have a pet dog at home I am not going to assume the proposition is false as dogs are an everyday thing we all know and can demonstrate to exist.

If, however, you tell me there is an Elf who lives in your pocket, I am going to need you to provide some proof as this is a claim of extraordinary nature. In this instance the burden of proof is upon you.

Mainly because people won't give a shit whether you have a dog at home or not. There is nothing at stake in this proposition. Different types of claims require a different approach.

Playing to some of his base and shitting off ScoMo is surely his intent.

What about undecidability? — Agent Smith

I haven't found it hard to decide that I don't believe in gods and I have a high degree of confidence that the idea is false (based primarily on a familiarity of the classical arguments and the work of apologists, even presuppositional apologetics). But, importantly, one can't prove a negative. As you may have read elsewhere, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim about god or, for that matter, the Flying Spagetti Monster.

There are a lot of things I don't believe in and consider to be false but can't as yet be 'proven' to be false - Bigfoot; the Loch Ness Monster; alien abductions, leprechauns, Russell's infamous teapot. You could devise a very long list of such things.

Digression: The idea of god/s is so incoherent for me that the idea can only be accommodated through a perspective of mysticism (where reason is not involved) - and for which I have some sympathy. Certainly the least concrete, abusive and nasty accounts of theism seem to be those of the mystics, particularly in the Christian tradition, from Gregory of Nyssa to Thomas Merton.

Some examples of crimes against society:

1. Abortion
2. Sexual deviance
3. Bigamy and polygamy
4. Disturbance of the peace
5. Violation of helmet and seat belt laws
6. Cruelty to animals
7. Domestic violence
8. Desecration of a flag and public monuments
9. Graffiti
10. Littering and loitering — L'éléphant

Personally I have partaken in 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 at various times. Sexual deviancy is meaningless - in many parts of the world many natural acts are classified this way. Part of the problem is getting agreement as to what constitutes a social crime here. What kind of society are you advocating for. I would rate tax evasion higher than all but 6 and 7.

It's archaic patriarchic nonsense. — Banno

Indeed; a sample of entrenched vintage sexism. Belongs to the same category as those who, in asking about the health of someone's wife, say, 'How's the little woman?' :gasp:

Ah! So, "there is no good reason to believe in god" implies atheism but it doesn't imply "there is no god"? :chin: There are brands of atheism consistent with this line of reasoning. Could you elaborate on that. Thanks. — Agent Smith

Yes, however I'm no expert on atheism. Atheism is not a philosophy and it has no doctrines. Some atheists believe in the supernatural, for instance. And remember, most people who believe in a god, say, Allah, are atheists with regard to hundreds of other deities humans believe in. Most people are therefore atheists of a sort.

Not everyone agrees on categories - like any other area of belief. I am an agnostic atheist. This means I am atheist regarding belief - I am unable to believe in a god/s - and I am agnostic about whether knowledge of god/s is possible. I notice a similar view is held by American Atheists.

To go from "there is no good reason to believe in god" and "there is no good reason to believe in goblins" to there is no god and there are no goblins is to commit the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy (vide infra). — Agent Smith

You've missed the point. You keep skipping ahead. A responsible atheist does not say there is no god. S/he says there is no good reason to believe in god - the case has not been made. It's like a murder case in law. A person found not guilty is not innocent. They simply have not met the legal criteria for guilt.

:wink:

Mary Midgley is particularly clear and readable on these issues — Banno

I read her piece on philosophical plumbing Very clear.

Talk of things being solid is grounded in our everyday interactions with solid things, wonky things, liquids, and so on. It's nothing o do with quantum. — Banno

Ok, good, I understand what you are saying. Can I ask what is the principle which underpins the perspective you use here to select 'real world' experience over a knowledge of QM? I understand that in human experience the object is solid. Do we privilege this because we can't avoid the realities of, for instance, a head on crash with the 207 bus to Shoppingtown?

I imagine some of us would become so bored that philosophy could develop a new urgency.

The question is, if you and I see them as being different, how do we go beyond those difference to see what it really is. — Wayfarer

Like many I have often festered over the idea of what 'really is' actually means. In the end, even for 'physicalism' all we think we know seems to be quantum waves - solid matter being a myth. I guess what you are searching for is capital T truth out there somewhere above and beyond the flailing of human perceptions and rationalism. Is this the appeal of idealism - this second set of books which makes sense of the first book? I just wonder if this can be achieved - despite recognizing the enormous literature and speculative work in the affirmative.

You put a good case, Banno. I like the drama of my wording more, but yours may be more apropos.

There is something powerful in the idea of what we see being perspectival.

Then what would you mean when you said "we see the same objects (differently)"? — Srap Tasmaner

As my example indicates, we see different things, when we look at the same thing.

But I have no idea if this addresses remotely what the others are all on about.

When I stand in the desert here in Australia looking at sand and jagged scrub, I know my Aboriginal Australian comrades see food, water and an entire ecosystem of meaning and potential which is nothing but a howling void to me. We see different things.

Example: when you’re devastated from a broken heart being told to cheer up on account of there being more fish in the sea brings you down, not up. But being told the situation is awful helps to relieve the pain, making you feel better. — javra

Yep. In counselling we might call this validating and acknowledging. Without it people don't feel understood or heard.

different people see the same objects in different ways.
— Kenosha Kid

And I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. — Srap Tasmaner

I can also say this with a straight face...

Yes! That bit doesn't confuse me. The bit which confuses me is that objects are mini theories but don't worry about the theoretical import of the object when using it. — fdrake

This is not my area, but I guess we can't know which theory to ascribe towards an object at any point given all the potential values possible. Is a gun operating as a tool, an instrument of oppression, a source of liberation, as symbol of the constitution, a hammer? But I could be totally wrong...

This makes me very confused. Objects are mini theories — fdrake

I'm assuming because all objects belong to a system of value and meaning.

The Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy states that just because G hasn't been proved, we can't then conclude ~G. The rationale is simple: no proof at all for G is indistinguishable from there is proof of G but you haven't discovered it yet). — Agent Smith

Digression: The time to believe in something is when there is sufficient evidence. Sure, lack of evidence is not proof against a proportion, however that does not imply 'believe it anyway'. A responsible atheist would not say there is no god, they would say there is no good reason to believe in god. Just as there is no good reason to believe in goblins - even though goblins also can't be disproved. That said, reason is largely bypassed on this question anyway. Most tend to choose beliefs like these based on emotional grounds and dress them up with reasons.

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker

That is an interesting observation. I've never taken any real interest in these sorts of 'pithy' statements but good to know that often there is a foundational underpinning. The idea of them being a mnemonic is interesting too.

You would think, someone that is hopeful, optimistic and has an idealistic view of the future would be uplifting, encouraging and motivational, but I find these views, or the concepts that hold about the world to only further depress me further. — Cobra

Pessimists and optimists are equally boring to me. Both take it as a forgone conclusion that they have things sussed and that their take on life/history/politics/culture is indisputable. There are few things more tedious.

Recently listened to "Epic of Gilgamesh" and he was described as wise. But clearly he started out unethical, self serving, probably cruel. Is that a contradiction to being wise? — TiredThinker

Over time and with experience, some people develop, grow and change. I think this is true based on what I have seen. Some of the wise people in alcohol and drug support, for instance, are peers with lived experience who have managed to work through the issues underpinning their addiction and stay clean. They have wisdom that was born out of making many mistakes for many years. Some people are able to transcend trauma, narcissism, hatred, cruelty, immaturity and greed.

Are you seriously claiming that I can see a flower more clearly than I could when I was five years old, because that would be the implication of your 'ever-improving' model claim? — Janus

Can't speak for KK but in a way my ability to see and appreciate (for want of a better word) a flower has definitely improved since I was 5. Given that flowers are not just objects to see but also objects to contextualize (flowers as symbols, flowers as a functioning part of nature, etc) the fullness of my understanding of a flower has evolved. And, if I studied botany, I would see a given flower in an even more enhanced way and see things others might not. Objects can be seen and not seen - if you understand my meaning.

Hellen Keller managed to be a pretty interesting thinker despite being blind and deaf from birth.

I am not suggesting that we are just novelty producing machines. What I am trying to convey is that we can only experience the world in terms of similarities and likenesses with respect to our history. Everything we encounter, no matter how new and surprising, has our stamp on it already. Nothing is ever completely unfamiliar to us. We can’t make any claims about a world beyond this relationship without lapsing into incoherence. — Joshs

That is an interesting point. Can we discover truly new things - could it happen incrementally as part of a creative process? An example wouldn't hurt.

I make that distinction, explicitly. Indeed, you do not seem to have grasped the simple point that we can talk about both our experiences and the things experienced. — Banno

It keeps coming back to this, doesn't it? It's like the thing itself vanishes if we are able to have an experience of it.

The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West. — Apollodorus

Yes. The West has an energetic tradition of self-loathing too it seems to me. Much of this an understandable by-product of reactions to the horrors of imperialism and Western expressions of colonization.

I recall Buddhist groups and yoga groups I attended in the 1980's where much time was spent bemoaning the crassness of Western spiritual traditions (only half-understood) and celebrating the group's genius in moving away from the superficial West to embrace Eastern orientations - sometimes right up to wearing fancy dress (Eastern robes and decorative elements).

Enlightenment, regardless of what in particular is meant by it, appears to be such that people tend to generate hostility or envy around it.

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment? — baker

I've always assumed spiritual practices and beliefs generated just as much acrimony and division as anything else constructed by human beings. You have done way more work in this area - what do you think enlightenment looks like?

Spiritual systems all seem to coalesce around an etherial endgame - a blissful realm that humans can achieve with the right attitudes or practices. Enlightenment seems to be one of these stories. The endless quest for perfection and arrival.

Thank you.

What question/s do you think is of most value to ask leaders of countries/organisation?

If you had only three questions to ask what would you ask and why? — I like sushi

Asking questions doesn't often lead to getting genuine answers when you talk to leaders. The 'answers' you receive tend to be mediated marketing statements.

Over the years, I've spoken to CEO's, senior government policy makers, politicians and cooperate leaders and news editors (often about law reform, social policy and resource allocation) - they pretty much all have prepared responses and holding statements ready for almost any question you may ask.

And why would they answer questions, anyway? People are lightning quick to nail you for any answer you give that will unsettle a stakeholder or aggravate public opinion.

But assuming you got a genuine answer, for me there is really only one question to ask any leader - What factors are responsible for any significant decision you make? Drilling down into this will tell you what you need to know about leadership and change management.

Enlightenment is concerned with truth, and therefore, to address the begged question we are forced to affirm that value is an essential part of this.

The matter then turns to value: what is it? An argument over the nature of value is THE philosophical discussion to have. Until the nature of value is revealed, talk about enlightenment is just question begging. This makes ethics/aesthetics the first order of affair. All that talk about Buddhists, theologians and Gods, rationalists and their quest for axiomatic assurance, all of these "narratives" come down to an analysis of value and its meaning. — Constance

What is an argument over the nature of value? Step it out if you have time.

I am sympathetic to the view that there is no capital T truth out there to be found. Humans make truth. Utility seems to me to determine the traction or value of any given narrative. How well does it work for us to meet our goals.

On the other hand, as I noted in an earlier post, I am closer to enlightenment than any of you are.
— T Clark

No, no. I am, heh, heh, "far closer". — Constance

Perhaps enlightenment is a pissing competition recast as a meta-narative... :razz:

I wanted to ask others if they think people or intellectuals in general have a desire to be consistent? — Shawn

I make no significant attempt to be consistent. if I am is it because I accidentally hold consistent positions. I think humans are walking contradictions and life is messy. The people I know who strive to be consistent tend to be fanatics and cranks.

Do you know anything that isn't somehow "tied to various narratives people hold"? — baker

Exactly my point. Enlightenment is no different to other things people believe. It isn't something outside of people to be found in some particular way. It's just a story, like so many others we tell.

I guess I am who I am because I am. — Ragian Azariah

That's exactly what Yahweh thought and look what happened there...

I don't think we disagree to much about contingence and ontology. When I put questions to people it is not necessarily that I don't have a position or an answer already - I am interested in hearing what others think - especially if it is a different view to mine. I like to evolve my thinking - I am unsophisticated in philosophy.

My own view is that this notion of enlightenment is simply tied to various narratives people hold. I am unsure whether anything meaningful can be said about the subject, except from a historical perspective - that is, locating the idea in the context of this or that worldview.

Does anyone have an example of Magick they can site?