Yes, people change beliefs, but usually for reasons. I don't think it is choice.

Is Buddhism a belief about human nature? I wonder how meaningful this is. Can this not be said for most beliefs: fascism, science, Randian Objectivism, the theater...

Personally what passes for Buddhism is so broad and subjective I'm more interested in what can't be said about it.

OK. Interesting. I have no idea what beliefs suit people. I generally hold that people don't choose their beliefs. But they might be influenced in some direction or another. I tend to support Epicureanism (such as I understand it) but only because it accords with what I already hold.

I mean, that a larger population of people seemingly prefer Epicureanism rather than Buddhism nowadays? Therefore, the masses decided what's best?? — Shawn

Apart from the fallacy here - there's an assumption made that we can measure this accurately. Do you have a source for this?

That fact is, to me, unacceptable, and requires no more knowledge than that gained from glancing at a newspaper. — ToothyMaw

Pretty much what I thought you might argue. :wink: But this is your 'puny subjective value system' against a god who knows all things. How could you possibly understand the meaning of it and presume to judge?

I was assuming that god is omnipotent; I'm carrying this argument over from Bartricks' problem of evil thread. Might want to give that a read first if you want to understand exactly why I formed this argument. — ToothyMaw

Regardless of your response to B, you still need to state everything in a syllogism, you can't assume.

I do understand this and all I am saying is that the presuppositions made in this argument are flawed. The tough part of this argument actually takes place before you get to assembling proof of a god's moral failings. But there is no point in continuing to discuss this foundational element- you either take this on board or you don't. Carry on. :smile:

Thanks for your frankness. People's experiences can vary greatly and, at the risk of entering phenomenology via the wrong thread, we all see the world differently. Take care.

OK. I don't find this resonates with me. This takes a particular slant on human behavior I don't hold.

Even so, there is no essential difference between these two situational types, since they are both motivated by and determined for the achievement of selfish ends. There is no motivational difference. — Michael Zwingli

So they are the same motivationally but one is preferable to the other? So is the way to assess the merits of an act then found in the virtue of the performative deed rather than it's origin?

I wonder too if finding pleasure in, say, anonymously donating money to a charity is the same type of pleasure as finding pleasure in murdering children.

None of which is too say 'the field' isn't there, or is constructed. I just to want to allow that they are, in one sense, doing the same thing, and in another, doing three different things. A veteran cattleman will also look at the field differently from someone less experienced. — Srap Tasmaner

Agree. It's interesting too how we bring who we are to our observation of things. Each object we look at is also poured full of our history and our personal experience with objects, colors, a multiplicity of associations. The cattleman is a good example - what he sees when he looks over the landscape is an entire realm of signs and signifiers that you and I do not see and can't access. We see a different world - to an extent.

But your question is apropos: Is this decisive?

And...... there is a right to suicide, for whatever reason, and access to information and the means. — Natherton

The interesting thing for me is that of those people who have received support during episodes of suicidal ideation, they frequently report being very thankful that they didn't go through with it. It was a reaction to an incident, a situation or an episode, which passed. — Tom Storm

I would argue this should be at the foundation of all thinking about the issue.

:ok:

sometimes spelled as Da-sein) is a German word that means "being there" or "presence" — Wayfarer

"I like to Watch"

Peter Sellers: Being There.

But not in religion/spirituality: because that has the potential to destroy you from the inside and the outside, never to recover. — baker

:fire:

The idea that human beings are able to be other than self-interested and self-absorbed is, I think, a pie-in-the-sky notion, and is a "useful fiction" with which we universally delude ourselves in order to avoid living in a constant state of horror at how alone we truly are. — Michael Zwingli

This is a very common view. Used to be called cynicism (in the non-philosophical sense). What do you consider to be good evidence for this? Is there a difference between gaining satisfaction through helping others and more rapacious forms of self-interest, like being a slum lord or selling drugs? Are they the same thing?

I know it's slightly off topic but I'd also be interested in what you mean by 'the horror at how alone we truly are'? What do you have in mind here?

In short, if you're eager to compete, religion/spirituality is a brilliant venue to do so. Corporate sharking is small fry in comparison to the power games that go on in religion/spirituality. — baker

That's certainly what I have seen over a couple of decades involved in various groups and associations. Whether there is a path to higher consciousness or not, it seems to me that those who are in pursuit of this are no less prone to substance abuse, jealousy, scheming, lying, philandering and ambition than any other group. Although it seems there's something nastier about all this when it's a part of spirituality.

Ah, Dickheads on Facebook, the new Salem witch trials...

You've expressed this is a marvelously adroit fashion. Thanks.

I don't drink anymore, but I still have Muddy Waters. Right now - Electric Mud; song; Tom Cat. Some salacious blues helps to remind me that being is a state of flux and arousal.

Yeah you know I'm a tomcat and you's my kitten
And I'm scratching around in your windowpane
Yeeeah you know I'm a tomcat and you's my kitten
And I've been scratching around in your windowpane
Let me in let me in baby
So I can feel good all over again

I think that's true across a much wider spectrum than simply positivism. — Wayfarer

Back to that blind spot :party:

If god is just he does not allow injustices to occur. — ToothyMaw

I appreciate you trying to hone this argument but I don't think this is sound premise either.

Would it not be better stated as "If god is just and omnipotent they would not allow injustices to occur." (using gender neutral pronouns)

My other reservation with this point is that it presumes to know how God would view human injustice. There are assumptions baked into the premise and frankly there are too many unknowns to justify the claim. For one, what if human injustices are not seen as injustices by God because God knows things we do not? Etc.

But people do believe god is all of those things you say he likely is not. — ToothyMaw

I understand this (you are wanting to use theism's beliefs against itself, which is standard atheist apologetics) but this very point (the wonky assumption made by believers) is the one that requires further questioning. As I see it, your syllogism is willingly accepting claims that have not been sufficiently justified.

Amen to that.

1) If god existed he would not allow injustices to occur
(2) Injustices occur
(3) Therefore, God does not exist — ToothyMaw

I have heard no reason to hold a belief in any kind of deity, so arguably this entire argument can be swept away. But I like arguments and I don't see how the first premise is justified

Even as an atheist I ask myself, theoretically, who are we to know what a god would want? All we have are claims and a few dubious old books that are written by humans. Gods remains silent on all matters and leaves all communication to human spokespeople. (How could this possibly go wrong?) For all we know any hypothetical god is a cunt and why would it not be? Just pinning some 'omni' words onto some image of any kind of deity accomplishes nothing.

I've seen a range of WFH folk who are not privileged; they are call centre workers and other low status IT type roles. Sometimes the home they are in does not sustain their work - a tiny bedsit; a share house with students; a car... The work can be lonely and isolating and I am aware of quite a lot of mental ill health coming out of the WFH arrangements in my city.

You know your American iconoclasts... :ok: I had a Vidal fixation in the 1980's and 90's. I've studied his work for decades, read most of the essays & most of the novels, some several times over and I've heard or watched almost every interview he ever did.

I hear you. I wonder if any of this matters to a life lived. Physicists also tell us that reality is a series of fields with blobs of discrete energy bouncing upon these is some way I don't pretend to understand. None of this seems to matter much except to physicists and dilettantes. I sometimes think that what matters is not ultimate reality (whatever this is at the time of writing) but the quotidian world we live in and can make use of.

So all you seem to be saying is we should all be given the right to kill ourselves whenever we choose to by state sanction.

The interesting thing for me is that of those people who have received support during episodes of suicidal ideation, they frequently report being very thankful that they didn't go through with it. It was a reaction to an incident, a situation or an episode, which passed. I think it is the nature of humans to sometimes seek suicide in lieu of a better solution to a situational crisis. When the crisis has passed (and this may take hours, days or months), a more positive life may be established.

Gore Vidal:

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties."

Your senses present you with what is called apparent reality, as opposed to ultimate reality which is only partly accessible to us. — boagie

What is your evidence of an 'ultimate reality'?

My issue is about free will as much as the topic of suicide itself. If a human doesn't have the right to use/discard his life, which is his own, what right does he really have? — Echoes

Not sure I follow - can you expand? People don't require the right to make use of suicide and they do so all the time. Or people can fritter away an entire life using substances. What's missing for you in this?

As someone who has provided suicide intervention counselling over the years I can make a few observations from a particular perspective.

The person who genuinely wants to die and has access to means along with a plan is likely to kill themselves. There is no magic spell to prevent this. 'Refutation' is not applicable.

In most of these situations people generally have reasons for dying along with reasons for living. Few people who wish to die don't also have reasons to live - it is the role of an intervention to identify the latter and see if these can overcome the former.

Where this is most challenging is when significant pain is present. Pain which won't go away (whether this is emotional or physical) may overcome anyone's reasons for living. It doesn't take a genius to understand why.

I take the view that suicide is sometimes a reasonable response to situations which have no positive resolution (for instance a terminal disease involving incapacity and distress). I do not view suicide as a sin or as weakness.

Claiming that life is meaningless misunderstands what meaning is. Life is meaningful if you so make it. — Banno

I like this. Is it possible to push it any further? I'm thinking along the lines that people have a responsibility to construct their own meaning rather than inherit an 'off the rack' version (theism or scientology, whatever). Or would you find this too prescriptive?

IOW, people ordinarily don't ask the question you do, they find it absurd.

That said, I, personally, wouldn't ask myself that question either, but would just focus on the interaction at hand, rather than seeking to get a definitive idea of who the other person is. — baker

I hear you and largely agree. But my question came out of the debate earlier around interpretations of Heidegger as a man who appeared to make choices and what might be a more useful method of conducting such an exegetical task - an approach focusing on a man's politics/morality, or one that bundles historical/psychological influences to make an interpretation. I generally take the view that if this activity is worth doing it should lead somewhere and was trying to understand this and the methodology of the task better.

Back to being....

I haven't said if it is possible or not I asked how it is done.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think there's merit in what you say. I was asking Joshs how does one come to an understanding of another person using the tools and approaches he listed when it seems a range of meanings (some contradictory) might be possible. This doesn't mean I don't think it is possible.

Can you expand, not sure I understand your point.

Some fascinating ideas Joshs.

For me, understanding personal behavior in the context of sociological, historical and psychological influences isnt just a question of locating mitigating factors, but constitutes the central explanatory system for dealing with others. — Joshs

I imagine there might be endless possible readings of a given person in the context of sociological, historical and psychological influences. How do you determine you have an appropriate reading of these influences in constructing an explanatory system?

The twin evils of scientism and capitalism, with their total disregard for nature, stand in the way of any new socialist order which would seem to be the only hope for civilization going forward. That our destinies are determined by a tiny cabal of individuals and giant corporations who would rather see the world burn than give up their power and privilege is quite an horrific scenario to contemplate.

On the one hand we have to listen to what science is telling us about climate change and the devastating effect of capitalism on the ecosystem and on the other hand we cannot expect science (in the form of technology) to save us if we want to survive. As Heidegger pointed out the way to destruction is to see nature as a "standing reserve", rather than as something to be nurtured and preserved. — Janus

I'd be interested in how such views are compatible with Heidegger's work on being (and no I am not trying to be a dick) I am always curious how complex theoretical positions translate into or are compatible with world-views such as these.

Well, I was talking about how Trump may see this, not really any reference to Putin's actual work (whatever this may really be). T likely just sees P as an ideal version of who he would like to be - able to easily kill and jail opponents and censor the press and say a fulsome fuck you to Western Liberal elites.

The most logical reason I can think of is simply appeasing to the populist crowd, but it simply doesn't make sense. — ssu

Perhaps you are over-thinking this. I don't think Trump's fascination for Putin is anything more than one inflated roid-ridden bodybuilder admiring an even more inflated roid-ridden bodybuilder standing nearby in the gym. What Trump's people themselves thought is a separate matter as is whatever populist considerations there might be in this. Remember too the saying 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' - that fits Putin in relation to the liberal elites who also disparaged Trump.

Thanks. I'll mull over this a while.

Now all I have to do is figure out which things are variable/ creative. — SatmBopd

I'm sure a range of morally questionable activities are also this.