You morally should engage in things that are worth engaging with, and you should not engage in things that are not worth engaging with. — SatmBopd

I think just about everyone holds a view like this. But is it not the case that determining which things are not worth engaging with is one of the more complex problems faced by human beings? Even the question what is boring is subjectively determined. I, for instance, am bored by theater, sport, rock 'n' roll, Netflix, religion, weddings, science fiction, politics. Others seem to be invigorated and galvanized by these subjects. What's next?

Thanks Joshs.

As far as I’m concerned , there is no shortcut to reading Being and Time, although you could attempt secondary sources. — Joshs

I'm sure you are right.

Anyway, I watched Trump meet Putin here. Strange that the US President was a total toadie for the Russian President. It simply is bizarre. — ssu

I didn't think it was strange. Putin is precisely the kind of charismatic, unconstrained 'strong man' Trump would see himself as aspiring to be. Since Trump scorned most conventional Western democratic politics, where else would he go for models?

Still -- so what? It helps make sense of the world, of people in the world, of the beliefs, values, choices, and behavior of these people -- up to and including those in power, who control humanity's future and fate. I think capitalism, for example, can ultimately be seen as an outgrowth of this long philosophical (ontological) tradition. — Xtrix

So how does examining 'being' accomplish so much? Can you provide an applied example?

Interesting. I'm still trying to understand why it matters at all what anyone's understanding of being is. What can it do for us?

No interest in getting into a debate on this, that's for a different type of site. But the lesson here is that one man's conspiracy is another's load of bollocks. And this banality really only becomes interesting when the conspiracy is so widely believed it is almost understood by the culture as a fact. PS I think Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by attorney Vincent Bugliosi is a better starting place.

Nuh. I know all about Prouty and that terrible Oliver Kidney-Stone movie.

As in the murder of John F Kennedy, when so many of the standard precautions for protecting a presidential motorcade were suddenly missing. — boagie

I tend to accept the Oswald verdict. But the idea of a conspiracy is so intrenched regarding JFK that it has almost become an accepted 'fact'.

However, in fairness, I do think that on certain occasions his way of speaking about things is unique and special, in a sense that I can't explain if pressed.

In general the pragmatists do a better job, I think, though Joshs will very much disagree. — Manuel

Thanks, my view of Heidegger is entirely personal and no reflection on the work (whatever it is). What is it you go to these thinkers for?

Thanks. I find H unreadable so I'll never know...

Do you think Heidegger uses being in a more useful way?

That depends on whether the Buddha of the Pali Canon really was sourgraping or not. — baker

What do you think?

Fair enough, I wasn't thinking about meditation. Not something I have done myself for decades.

Quick question. Seems to me there is a lot of pop-Buddhism around these days. People often have a kind of romanticized, redacted, 'self-help' form of Buddhism in mind when they consider this path. So my ill phrased question is; what's worse - no understanding of Buddhism or a familiarity with the self-help variety?

I for some reason find this to be an axiomatic truth which requires no reasoning, logically structured argument, or faith. It is an inherent, self-proving truth. — Mp202020

As a human being living a finite life in what appears to be an entropic universe, the idea of eternity seems incoherent to me for the same reasons that you believe in it.

I can't tell whether the puzzle is difficult or I'm stupid! — TheMadFool

Why can't it be both? :razz:

If one tries hard enough, does one find true happiness in things that are subject to change, to aging, illness, and death? — baker

I'll take a stab at this. Immutability is not a necessary component of happiness from where I sit. Do I disparage an amazing meal because it gets finished? The pleasure is in the eating. Am I prevented from appreciating a magnificent sunny day because the weather will change in 16 hours? Do I bemoan friendship because my friends will all be dead in a few decades? For me pleasure or delight is felt in moments, in glimmers of experience. Those moments do not have to be permanent to be cherished.

How can death be sleep when sleep is part of being alive? — The Opposite

Good point. I like to think of death as like sleep only deeper and less refreshing.

Musical jubilation - sounds good. I've noticed you often advocate/celebrate some fine music yourself as, perhaps, a kind of remedy for the Sisyphian reality. Is this what you/Schop mean?

That resonates with me too.

Of course there are places and situations on earth right now where pessimism may seem more apt.

Does human nature refute philosophical pessimism? — Shawn

Does human nature exist and if it did could it refute anything?

And if the pessimist feels empathy, which most do, then maybe see if you can help other somehow. What else? — Manuel

The solution to most wallowing.

Many of the pessimists I have met have been comfortable, middle class folk who seem to get something out of pessimism. Those doing it tough (poverty, sickness, trauma) I've found are often optimists.

:up: Thanks AP. It's been an interesting ride so far.

I would have thought it is almost impossible not to hold a metaphysical position. Surely, whenever you take a view about the nature of reality, you are expressing a metaphysical belief.

This from Kant stuck me as interesting:

Metaphysics has as the proper object of its inquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality.

Freedom?

One isn't supposed to just "look within", but to look within in a very specific way. Many will object, of course, that in such a case, one isn't actually looking within at all. — baker

Interesting and thanks for the reference. (I read most of Hesse back in the 1980's.) Yes, I wonder if we can look within at all too. I also wonder if epoché, can actually be accomplished. Is it really possible to bracket off of block biases and assumptions in order to explain a phenomenon in terms of its own inherent system of meaning?

If you’re not interested in studying consciousness then a science of consciousness — I like sushi

Is that what I said? My point was I am not interested in reflecting upon my own consciousness. I can't see how this approach could lead to much more than a self-indulgent manufacturing of meaning. But I could be wrong.

Your other points are interesting ones. I'll keep reading.

It is the same as asking how is science of use. That was kind of my point. — I like sushi

Science? I guess there I can see how it might be of use. Science is an expression of physicalism (for the most part) and (is/ought problem aside) we can decide upon many things based upon this worldview. The use of vaccinations, for instance; considering climate change and/or whether or not to support certain Presidential candidates and their claims/positions.

If, as @180proof has stated, phenomenology is a form of idealism, that raises a range of questions.

As a purely theoretical means of modelling conscious experience it is also useful in that the ‘lab’ is yourself. — I like sushi

I'm not sure that means an awful lot to me. I don't really give a toss about what might be possible in reflecting upon my own conscious experience. Reflecting upon time holds almost no interest either.

Husserl was staunchly opposed to psychologism. — I like sushi

Interesting. Was this because it was uncomfortably close to an objective scientific approach to him? or a form of scientism?

Thanks.

Phenomenology isn’t a ‘philosophy’ in terms of being a way of living life. — I like sushi

Yep, I get that - but I ask what it might contribute towards an ordinary life and decisions? How is it of use?

Interesting question. I'm interested in how phenomenology understands intersubjectivity and how a shared knowledge system such as science works alongside, or in contrast to, say a religious system. Phenomenologists still make decisions and have preferences in the world (politics, spirituality, jobs, family, schools) - how are these made?

In what sense is "The earth revolves around the sun" a metaphysical statement. — T Clark

Aren't the presuppositions of science (which go into making such a statement) comprised of metaphysical positions - e.g., that reality is a state of affairs which can be understood and accurately described? And wouldn't physicalism be the metaphysical foundation of science?

So don't you think Mental Health is mostly align to lets say biology and emotional illness lets. Lets say "schizophrenia"

Emotional issues is more event based like trauma compared to a soldier with "PTSD"

one has a chemical and neurological disorder that created an emotional symptom.

The other is struggling with an experience/knowledge based emotional reaction. I witness something horrible and the information I am processing is causing a negative emotional reaction. — TheQuestion

This is confused. Emotional regulation and affect more generally are key indicators of mental health. Many mental illnesses - depression, schizo-affective disorder, hypomania, dysthymia, bi-polar, personality disorders and episodes of suicidal ideation - are all understood through their emotional impact. People's emotional regulation are a key indicator of their mental health. Emotional states are core predictors of psychological health and resilience. The two go together like peaches and cream.

You seem unduly sensitive to this. Try not to be defensive and aggressive in return. No need to re-write anything: this is a forum. You made a point, I made a comment. As I wrote, I was taking this at random. It's just that using Nazi's as an example seems lazy and is such a ubiquitous rhetorical device. And you were so emphatic about it too that it seemed opportune to provide feedback. Feel free to ignore it GMBA and carry on.

Sposed to be a crying/laughing emoji inserted in there Tom—but it didn’t take. — Leghorn

:up:

I mean the psychoanalysis of shooters and what motivated them to act on those impulses. — TheQuestion

Psychoanalysis refers to a particular therapeutic intervention. What you mean is a psychological or psychiatric assessment. These can be notoriously unreliable.

I am simply trying to get another perspective. — TheQuestion

This is not 'another perspective'. It is widely held today that social media is sending people bonkers hence endless article and discussion about bubbles and feedback loops and self-harm and other deleterious impacts. You are just restating what many people already believe.

Obviously to a Nazi, killing Jews was innately moral. To a non-Nazi, killing Jews for this belief is innately immoral. The same act. Good and Bad. — god must be atheist

Just taking this at random demonstrates to me the innate difficulty of actually making these sorts of statements coherent.

It wasn't just Nazi's who celebrated the Final Solution, it was anti-Semites. Some were not Nazi's.

The Nazi's were not propelled into the Final Solution by notions of Jewish world hegemony. Hitler partly inherited the Christian hatred of Jews as Christ killers. Martin Luther used to preach about burning them all. As a eugenicist, Hitler also held to a racial purity crusade and Jews to him were vermin to be exterminated from the human gene pool. Hence the use of the same gas (Zyklon B) that was a pesticide to fumigate factories and ships against lice and cockroaches.

Now here's the thing. Why get into this messy material as an example for your rather uncomplicated idea?

Why not just go with something less frequently shoehorned like - The World Trade Centre airplane hijackers? Heroes to Wahhabi Islamisists, villains to most people in the West. How does the cliché go - one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter?

Psychoanalysis? Involved in the events? What does this mean? No. Sounds like you have already made up your mind that this is a thing. It's certainly fashionable to make this claim about social media. And it could be true but how would we know? Oops, back here again.

Take for example school shooting and suicide rates. If we were able to take a census from 1920 to 1980 and a census of 1990 to now it would probably be a very frightening revelation. — TheQuestion

But the point is, you can't tell from such a change what is responsible for that change. So many things have altered since 1990, how would you establish it is social media and not, say, inadequate education, political failure, inadequate parenting, consumerism, loss of meaning, junk food, movies, etc?

I also doubt you can compare mental health reporting from 1920 or even 1990 to today. People were so uneducated about mental ill health. It was most likely underreported by an enormous amount.

What do you call The Philosophy Forum? — Leghorn

A hot mess.

Is social media making society more mentally ill?

Are there more mental illness now vs. before Social media was discovered? — TheQuestion

I'm not sure you could demonstrate a causal connection between the two.

This is a very old style claim. Innovations in technology are generally said to cause social disruption and interfere with people's mental health - newspapers, movies, TV, cars, recorded music, social media have all been accused of promoting social ills and having adverse mental health impacts.

I don't use social media and have not been on it to find out.

Hey, it's no biggie. Thanks for considering.

In relation to your thought experiment.

Do you think that "the correct way to study cancer is using science," is true in the same sense that "the capital of France is Paris," is? — T Clark

"The correct answer to what is the capital of France is Paris"
The correct way to study cancer is using science."

'Correct' plays a different role in both of these ideas.

And they are provisional - If you are studying people's 'lived experience' of cancer, the answer might be different.