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

Probably not, but I'm not a philosopher. Why this question?

It certainly isn't in my case. The selection is made on the basis of human value, usefulness, effectiveness. It's an important distinction. — T Clark

This is not intended as a criticism or animadversion, but what's the point of elevating utility if there isn't a demonstrable correct way to arrive there relative to the issue at hand?

The scientific method. I'm not trying to be cute. She's being lazy with her argument. — T Clark

Methods of cooking and legal enquiry too. I defer to her expertise. Have you read much of Haack's work? I am only making a superficial reference of her distinguished thinking on this subject (which I don't pretend to be familiar with except in overview).

Susan Haack (a prominent philosopher of science) suggests strongly that there is no scientific method as such. I'm paraphrasing, but for her there are just approaches used to test if something is likely and can be used by law, cooking and science.

There is no “Scientific Method,” I argue: i.e., no mode of inference or procedure of inquiry used by all and only scientists, and explaining the successes of the sciences. There are only the inferences and procedures used by all serious empirical inquirers (make an informed guess as to the explanation of some puzzling phenomenon, check how well it stands up to the evidence you have, and any further evidence you can get); these are not used only by scientists. Susan Haack

is not correct or incorrect, it is more or less useful. — T Clark

I've noticed that you often come back to this point. I wonder if this is slightly evasive. Surely a scientific approach to a problem is more correct if the matter is a hospital research team trying to treat or cure cancer? Prayer would be an example of an incorrect approach.

We seem to go out of our way to avoid using terms like right or wrong, correct and incorrect, perhaps in an attempt to sidestep debate. I would argue that some approaches are correct if you want a useful outcome. In determining which approach to use, one can set a criterion of value relative to the task at hand. Happy to hear where I am wrong.

Well, that's 16 nails in the coffin for Californian New Age practices... :razz:

Ultimately the atheist needs to tell us which conception they're rejecting, which alleged thing "there's no such thing as" on their account. — Cabbage Farmer

Generally an atheist will do precisely this whenever a new variation of a deity is raised. But it is one idea they are rejecting; a god - even if there are a range of variations of this idea.

for instance, along the lines of Spinoza's identification of God and Nature. — Cabbage Farmer

i would think most atheists see this use of the word god as more of a linguistic quirk. God as nature or as 'love' or as 'energy' is vague and leaves little to respond to.

I've considered myself a methodological naturalist for decades, though I entered that path on what I thought of as phenomenological grounds. — Cabbage Farmer

How so?

I'd say it's a much broader target, and includes "moderate" opinions held, often vaguely and uncritically, by many people who count themselves members and believers of traditional religions but who do not consider themselves fundamentalists. — Cabbage Farmer

I agree, I'm not arguing they have no broader intent or use, I was simply highlighting their most prominent. They also do 'preventative work' with less severe believers.

Such skeptics learn to train the unruly powers of discourse and belief to "follow appearances quietly", without disturbance from unwarranted claims. — Cabbage Farmer

Can you expand briefly on this last point?

I think this is largely a matter of personal taste. The fact that philosophy continues to recycle the same questions and answers on an almost endless loop of reoccurrence strongly suggests to me a nutty mammal doing circles to catch an extremity. I am an atheist, and I don't really expect answers and yet it still appears like this to me. It doesn't bother me.

is an exercise in tail-chasing. — Wayfarer

Sounds like at least one definition of philosophy. :joke:

Symbols are generally located within a cultural context and vary across cultures.

In the Western tradition in art Hall's Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art will shed light on traditions long forgotten by most.

If you have concerns, best to seek out a qualified medical doctor for clarification and support, not an internet forum. Insanity is an old-fashioned word used to describe a range of mental illnesses that result in significant impairment around appropriate decision making, personal safety and the safety of others. There might be a delusional component, auditory hallucinations, along with personal distress and paranoia. People may also have moments of lucidity.

:up:

The emotional fitness has a different content than the mental one. — LaRochelle

Not really. A key indicator of mental ill health (or a developing issue) are chronic feelings of sadness, emptiness or anger. Some people are able to manage their emotional life so that they don't become depressed or chronically irritable and angry. This is preventative work that can help people regain control over their thoughts and behaviors. Some workplaces encourage the development of emotional health in workers in order to stop unhealthy practices and mental illness from become a chronic issue with their employees. Remember mental illness in the workplace (as far as employers are concerned) has a considerable impact upon staffing and productivity .

Yes, I was horrified at the notion of cognitive hygiene, even when links were given. It seems like cleaning out the negative as if it is 'dirt'. I hope that is not the way forward for management in the mental health professions. — Jack Cummins

Indeed. It has that awful taint of 'purity' as wellness taint to it.

This individual would probably develop behavior problems due to his brain damage. And a Psychiatrist can only resolve certain aspects of this person's disability. That's where Psychology comes into play in the form of Behavior specialist, he/she would practice certain strategies to help modify the patient's behavior in a more positive way. — TheQuestion

Support for people with mental health is much broader that psychology versus psychiatry. And many services for people with mental health issues are not run or delivered by either profession (i.e.,social work, occupational therapy, art therapy, etc). And psycho-social support for people with mental health issues is also critical. If people get non-clinical support to manage negative emotions, this is often a good way of potentially avoiding the need for clinical services later.

How are emotions such as sadness, madness or gladness, mental phenomenon. — Varde

That's a funny question - never heard of a mood disorder, hey? Emotions are key indicators of people's mental health. I work in the area of mental health, addiction and suicide prevention.

What is the difference between Emotional Health vs. Mental Health?

And how do you differentiate the two when practicing cognitive hygiene? — TheQuestion

Cognitive hygiene is a dreadful and abrasive term.

Emotional health is a soft way of talking about mental health, without the ostensible stigma of the latter term. But, naturally, different organizations and practitioners will use the terms slightly differently. Emotional health is a term used frequently in workplaces to talk about the mental health of employees.

Would she be lonely. — Benj96

No.

But you didn't ask, "Would she crave roast beef?"

By now, I want to read studiously, or not at all. If after reading, I don't have something relevant to show for (primarily this means important insights that I have implemented in life, and secondarily, systematically knowing at least the main themes of the text), then I don't want to read at all — baker

Sounds very disciplined and productive. Mostly I only do things I enjoy.

Books that help one not waste time, but instead to do things effectively and efficiently. — baker

I'm not wishing to pry but would you feel comfortable sharing a title or two just to give me a better sense of what this looks like?

Thanks B, I can see what you mean and I'm happily attached to my illusion of objectivism.

But from here on, the discussion would necessarily need to get very techincal in and on Dharmic terms. — baker

I shudder at the thought of this.

Appreciate your perspective.

Does phenomenology offer something immensely beneficial, exhilirating? — TheMadFool

Well, it does seem to offer a different way of seeing the world and that in itself may be beneficial, possibly exhilarating, given how often we seem to get suck using the familiar approaches. But it seems to me you need to be an academic, a theorist or serious student of philosophy to acquire a robust understanding of phenomenology.

For the mind-body question, it means go with, run with how the mind and the body appear to you - Do they seem distinct? Then they are distinct. :joke: — TheMadFool

Yes, I think that could be one reading.

There are dogmatists who are uninterested in what reason has to say until or unless they think reason supports their own view. It's kind of pathetic. — Bartricks

Yes, I think that may be the same point I am making. The problem with reason is everyone thinks they are using it correctly and often as a kind of cudgel with which to whack about the others.

Wishful thinking. Not all believers are alike. I am a believer in God and I will stop believing if you refute my argument for God's existence, as it is solely on its basis that I believe in him. I doubt, however, that your failure to refute it would have any influence over your disbelief. Just a hunch. — Bartricks

I think we are all well aware that believers are a heterogeneous group. I wasn't thinking of you and whatever arguments you have for your belief - and I have no idea what those are. My point is believers (whatever the belief - Scientology, moon landing skeptics, Muslims) are often incapable of recognising when that their arguments have been refuted. I am sure you feel that way about atheists.

So, what's the reason for believing so despite science and logic? — Shawn

So here's the thing. Believers will keep believing even if science and logic could disprove god/s.

Darling, there's isn't much to read from the cannon.

Buy hey, I may well be wrong. After all, I'm not a philosopher.

How do you function without texts? By ignoring the fact that you read them in the past?

It's impossible to have "no texts". Leaving aside the special case of those who were born blind and/or deaf, everyone works with some texts, either by having them physically present (such as a book, or an audio) or by retrieving them from memory.
— baker — baker

I have read a lot of books but I only remember some impressions and the odd idea. To be honest I've enjoyed English literature more than the few philosophical texts I have read. Not sure any of this counts.

The reason I ended up here was to see what I may have missed and also to participate in some discussions - I was going to give it 4 weeks.

Which books do you recommend?

I appreciate your contributions and how you articulate the ideas. I think my key issue is I utterly lack the sensus divinitatis and I generally hold the view that people are attracted to the philosophy that emotionally satisfies them. Maybe I need to move on and go back to reading English literature.

Well I haven't rubbed up against this bronze either, but I don't find it attractive.

ven more important than "ruthlessness", is the very ability to discern one's own emotions, as well as those of others, and to determine the effect that they will have upon individual decision-making and upon "group dynamics". — Michael Zwingli

Most I have known don't have any of those skills and are widely despised for their lack of diplomacy and social skills. But some have been lucky to have senior management teams who have those skills and do the key work. There's a cult of the CEO, but from what I have seen they are largely a ceremonial figure who, if they are good, will have a crack team and stay the hell away from their work. When they try to actually do things they often screw it up and mess with the bottom line.

Mind you this all begs the question of what the scope of the term 'natural' implies. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think that is a key question.

I've tended to consider myself a methodological naturalist not a philosophical naturalist.

But in practice, 'naturalism' is the hard-nosed attitude that science is the only reliable arbiter of what is real, and that anything outside that is 'woo-woo' (sometimes with the concession that religious ideas might be ennobling or edifying.) — Wayfarer

I think I pretty much agree - this describes me.

Based on my position, what options do I have for words to describe the supernatural?

Answer: giving a fuck. If you don't give a fuck about the shit you know, it's not even going to win you Mastermind, because why would you even enter?. Whereas if you give a fuck about stuff you don't know shit about, you will fuck about with it and maybe learn something. — unenlightened

Voltaire?

Your average CEO is usually not the "smartest" guy in the company...he's the guy who is most competent at doing just this. — Michael Zwingli

Sure. I've known a few CEO's, most of them were not much good at their job and got there because they were more ruthless than the others.

I don't.

Whaddaya mean? — TheMadFool

Well, you need to be able to accept idealism is true, which comes with its own problems.

. There is no hard problem of consciousness. — TheMadFool

That's what they say. But it's swapped with the hard problem of idealism...

Yep - which kind of leaves me with 'supernatural' when I am fumbling around for an alternative to physicalism. Can you think of a better term?

Yes, but isn't physicalism (the supposed antithesis of the supernatural) considered a metaphysical position?

This is my understanding too, with emotional intelligence, such as it is probably correlating with agreeableness - if you are going to take the OCEAN model as your basis.

'Metaphysical' seems to be, in a certain sense at least, synonymous with 'supernatural'. — Janus

Is it possible to hold a position that isn't metaphysical?

Don't most people think in little maxims like these? — Bartricks

Don't know. I think only dull, literal minded folk take these things as concrete and immutable.

Supernatural' is a very loaded word. — Wayfarer

True. From my perspective, I am not sure what other word to use to get across the idea - of something that transcends the natural world.

Life begins at 40".

No it doesn't. By hypothesis, if you're 40 you've already been alive for at least 40 years. — Bartricks

Fair enough. I think The Mad Fool started a similar thread.

Nevertheless, aren't sayings like miniatures? Behind their austere surface they usually pack in unstated additional material at odds with a more concrete interpretation.

Looking at this one above, isn't a reading of this - You really don't start living (enjoying yourself and utilizing your experience fully) until you are 40? Some people would agree. I get the point of such sayings, but they're not meant to be mathematical equations.

It is better to know some of the questions, than all of the answer" — Bartricks

Well, there's a range of exegetical interpretations possible here. You can be overwhelmed by potential solutions or answers without actually knowing what they connect to in a practical sense. I have had that experience in the social policy world. Sometimes better to develop a set of very clear questions rather than going straight to solutions. For me this saying does not contain the premise "all the answers are true"

Something like that.

Nope. We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. — Mww

Yes, and the notion of a tree is an intersubjective agreement, unlikely to be a concept we would acquire unassisted.

Or it's a clash of dogmas. — frank

No question. But I wonder if some expressions of dogma are preferable to others. I would rather wrestle with a Catholic dogmatist than one from Islamic State.