Aristotle's example of what is sought for its own sake is eudaimonia—roughly "happiness," "well-being," or "flourishing." This appears to be a strong candidate. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Maybe. We're still left with the vexed act of interpreting what constitutes 'flourishing' and who gets to be a citizen in that model. For instance, does it fully include women? (Not looking for an answer to this)

On this one, I think I prefer Sam Harris' simplistic adaptation of Aristotle, which puts 'wellbeing' at the centre. Subject to the similar definitional and operational problems.

Why prefer some forms of social order over others? Presumably because we think they are truly better. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, in my case because they please me and comport with my values. And I like predictability. Morality can greatly assist us to make plans.

it would be quite another to say that it is "intersubjective agreements all the way down," or not explicable in terms of anything other than such agreements. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Can we demonstrate that this is not the case? Circular reasoning like this seems unavoidable throughout human experience. After all we use logic to prove logic. Isn't the very idea that - an action is morally right if it maximizes flourishing because maximising flourishing is what defines morality - circular?

Some might say that humans, as social, tribal animals have evolved behaviours (norms, codes) which benefit groups. Don't fuck your sister's husband, don't steal stuff and don't kill - would make sense in terms of the continuity and thriving of the tribe. But there are some tribes that don't have the injunction against stealing because there's no private property in their culture.

Does goodness change, or beliefs about what is good? Beliefs about everything vary by epoch, culture, and individual... — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I get it - the usual arguments against relativism, which I have put up myself elsewhere. I may start a thread on nuanced relativism. I'm not necessarily a proponent, just an admirer...

I am not sure 'good' means much without context and milieu. I'm not sure this is a resolvable matter. Relativism doesn't have to argue that all moral claims are equal, just that their status depends on the given social, cultural and personal context.

Likewise, the age of the universe is normally not taken to change when beliefs about this fact do, and this holds even though the specific measure of time we generally use to present and understand "the age of the universe"—the year—is a social construct. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This may be true about the universe's real age - if age even has meaning at this level. But I think the idea that the universe is the product of a singularity at a particular time is an intersubjective agreement held by certain parts of the scientific community. Is it not possible that one of those fabled paradigm shifts (so 20th century) might uncover a different cause and timeframe sometime?

But the age of the universe and how viruses work are surely of a different category to whether something is inherently good or bad.

:up:

So, one might assume that what the Good is sought for its own sake and that it must be a principle realized unequally in a disparate multitude of particulars (e.g. saddle making, painting, argument, etc.). One might also assume that other things are sought in virtue of the degree to which the perfect, possess, or participate in this principle. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't understand how the Good would be sought for its own sake. Does this imply, as many used to believe, that goodness is a kind of transcendental, independent of contexts and intersubjective agreements?

Seems to me that goodness varies greatly over time. While I don't think I'm a total relativist, I don't see how we can move beyond the culturally located nature of goodness. I get that many of us believe in moral progress and argue for various positions (which implies better and worse morality) but is it any more than just pragmatically trying to usher in our preferred forms of social order?

I assume that you adhere to some form of Platonism and view moral truths as existing beyond human experience?

In summary, we know for a fact that consciousness exists. But regardless of whether or not there are consciousnesses individual from your own, and whether the “we” could or could not mean “I”, the notion that others might lack individual consciousness does not invalidate their possession of consciousness altogether. In such a case, that consciousness would simply be your own. — Reilyn

I've never been convinced that I can know I am conscious. Sure, I can say that I appear to experince consciousness. But to what extent is this consciousness my own? It's an assumption which seems safe within ordinary refection. But how do I know that I am not experiencing the thoughts of another being, or machine?

Having a good heart is having a heart filled with opportunity to create things that benefit you. You would have purpose, you would have opportunities to create a beneficent circumstance. — Barkon

That doesn't sound like 'good' that sounds more like narcissism. If everything revolves around you and 'opportunities' and what 'benefits you', where does the good come in?

Because of ignorance, of not seeing what is real, and being attached to what is unreal. And that goes for me as much as anyone else. — Wayfarer

How did you rule out that the world just is a miserable place?

Everyone reacts differently to what they see. To some extent we can choose how we react to things, how we choose to frame what we see. I tend to think this is a great time to be alive and I prefer life today to what it was like when I was young in the 1970-80's. I love the increased diversity and choices, the better food and the technology.

So I decide to build my own set of rules and values, this is my first attempt and I will need your help, so where should I begin? What question should I make? — Matias Isoo

This will always be contested space and I have never been too much concerned by notions of good or bad. It's slippery and imprecise. I generally hold that to deliberately cause or allow suffering is bad and to work to minimise suffering or end it is good. How we measure this and how we define suffering is where the fun begins. There are a range of foundations for defining the good - from that which promotes human flourishing to those who argue that good is contextually constructed - a product of human preferences and emotions.

This leads to the question of is it the end of civilisation or is there potential for transformation? Is the idea of transformation mere romanticism or have people become too engulfed by nihilism? I am asking about the nature of values underlying politics. — Jack Cummins

None of the above. Who can say what happens next? I am not even sure anyone knows precisely what our current situation is.

We do seem to be in the grip of nostalgia projects and a new age of romanticism. Every second pundit seems to want to restore Neoplatonism or God or make America great again. There's a prevailing narrative doing the rounds that we have 'lost something' and need to regain it. I'm not taken with this story.

But I think the evidence and arguments for the idea that things can be actually good or bad for people is quite strong. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I think that's my main observation on this subject which is hardly original or revelatory. But I do think the quality of such people's lives can be much better than their nefarious activities might suggest. We don't want to think that such folk can get away with it and be happy.

For Aristotle, the virtues (excellences) are exactly those traits that allow one to achieve happiness. Eudaimonia is a virtuous life — Count Timothy von Icarus

An influencial framework. Do you personally accept it?

On the matter of pleasure/flourishing, I think I agree with Joshs -

Pleasure and what you are thinking of in ethical terms as ‘human flourishing’ are not independent entities. And given that all goals and purposes, including minor pleasures, are integrated holistically at a superordinate level, the depth of satisfaction of a pleasant life will be directly correlated with human flourishing. Of course, the other’s criterion of flourishing may not meet your standards, in which case you’re likely to split off their life of pleasures against what you consider robust flourishing, rather than adjusting your construal of their way of life such as to gain a more effective understanding of how they actually see things. That’s more difficult than carrying around a priori concepts of flourishing in your wallet. — Joshs

Nicely expressed.

The more general point is that it seems quite possible to have many pleasurable experiences and a "pleasant life," while avoiding the development of faculties and aptitudes that we tend to think are important for human flourishing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'd say someone we might regard as evil is probably as capable of leading a full and rewarding life as anyone else. The point I made about the aforementioned wealthy swindler is that their easy access to life-enhancing, qualitative aspects—like healthcare, services, education, and culture—allows them to enrich their flourishing further. It’s not merely about Fabergé eggs and flashy red cars.

I guess the crux of this matter is the question - are some forms of flourishing more virtuous than others? I think this comes down to the values of the person making that judgement. If you are influenced by Aristotle or Christianity you will say yes.

To be sure, you might be able to attain some goods by acting unethically. An unethical businessman might cheat and manipulate his way into having wealth and status, the ability to procure all sorts of goods for himself. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But it's more than that.

There's nothing to prevent that wealthy businessman from not having a rewarding and happy life. Access to significantly better food, superior health care, services and accommodation. To be able to provide these for friends, cronies and family as needed. To have sick children obtain preferential treatment. To access the best art, travel, education and advice. To live longer, healthier and safer and to have everyone they care about provided with the best things available in the culture. These are non-trivial matters and while the saying 'money can't buy you happiness' is often provided rather wanly when talking about such folk, sometimes it's the case that precisely the opposite is true.

being good is about attitude — Banno

This seems right to me.

It seems to me that full-blown constructivism is not a plausible hypothesis, given that experience shows us unequivocally we and even some animals see the same things in the environment. We see the bees seeing the flowers just as we do, but apparently, they can see colours we cannot. — Janus

This is a fair comment. But I wouldn't argue that humans do not share some similar points of reference to animals. It's just that the meaning of what we see is clearly different and located in cultural and linguistic practices, which animals certainly don't share. Once we step away from bees and flowers and consider how we make sense of our environment and how we derive values and meaning, it's another world entirely.

I think that can only be a reference to claims about what is beyond or outside the domain of naturalism, which suggests the supernatural, hence 'woo' in today's lexicon. — Wayfarer

Well, I'm not going to call woo on this. I'm just working through the ideas. I guess my point, at the risk of repetition, is that in a sense, the act of positing transcendence—whether it be metaphysical, epistemic, or existential—may be just another layer of the constructivist project, a narrative that we generate rather than an actual escape from our contingent realities. Yet, there’s a paradox here: the very recognition of our cognitive limitations seems to point to a desire to grasp something beyond them. Does this suggest an innate tension in human thought, or is it simply a reflection of the inherent constraints of our perspectival existence?

Throughout the early Buddhist texts, the point that is repeated over and over is awareness of and insight into the chain of dependent origination which gives rise to conditioned consciousness. In this context, It's not so much a matter of 'getting behind' those patterns, as of seeing through them - which is an arduous discipline. — Wayfarer

Yes, that's my understanding as well, though I come at it from a much less theorised perspective. It strikes me that nearly every other post here delves into the idea of uncovering the deeper reality behind reality we inhabit. It’s fascinating how often discussions circle back to the notion that humans dwell on the surface of something and that there are ways to dive beneath.

:up: I think I am in agreement with your general thesis - the world is 'created' by our cognitive apparatus, our minds. We are the ones who provide the perspective and a series of contingent interfaces. Which is why for me it seems problematic to provide any totalising claims about meaning or transcendence. Is it coherent to suggest that we can get behind the contingent product of experience? If it is all an act of constructivism, then so is the notion of transcendence. Thoughts?

If one were to know the truth of a significant matter, would transparency and honesty be owed to the community on said matter, even if it meant many in the community would feel harmed/ disenfranchised by it? — Benj96

Truth can be overrated. There could be numerous reasons not to share truth. Where it might cause undue suffering or panic or create other dire reactions. Of course as humans we have to assess the potential impacts of unleashing truths indiscriminately. In life one might have small tastes of this - do we always tell people who are dying that they are dying? The ugly that they are ugly? The unintelligent that they are dim?

What a Kant!

I also spent 18 years participating in Gurdjieff groups and practiced meditation every day. — Janus

An aside - Did you ever get anywhere with, Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson? I kicked around with people in Melbourne who were into Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. I spent a lot of time trying to follow the works. Got nowhere. Can't remember a thing 45 years later... Talk of degrees of reality. I got the feeling I needed more knowledge of the Greeks to fully appreciate Tertium Organum.

Excellent points.

Who do we have up there? A more benevolent ruler along the lines of Ceasar Augustus or Trajan, or a Stalin? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed and I've sometimes thought that the quasi ruling class (these days the Trumps and Musks ) are so desperate to hit the 'big time' but their glory amounts to being stuck in the same cave with the 'plebs' at the expense of transcendence 'outside'.

Right, there is also the question of people's aptitudes and interests too. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Indeed that's the big matter for me. And let's not forget innate intelligence too. Not everyone has the same capabilities.

But I think that in philosophy, as in science, a bulk of the work is digesting a new paradigm and making it easily intelligible and seeing how it can be applied (e.g. the whole Patristic period, with lots of great thinkers, is in a way synthesizing and digesting Plato, Aristotle, and Stoicism). If you want to read Hegel or Kant, great, but something like Pinkhard's version of Hegel is particularly valuable in that it isn't really a struggle to get through. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I like this idea a lot.

Cool. I don't particularly enjoy bickering with people and I really appreciate reading the different views here, especially those composed from careful reading and thinking. Which is the reason I joined.

Frankly, I can't help what I beleive. I have read enough to know something of what's out there and I was for many years connected to the Theosophical Society in Melbourne, so it's not like I sit with Dawkins.

For me, philosophy is not so much a search for truth or reality but a search for models and ideas that I can justify. Sure this is fraught. But so are most other approaches.

Do you agree with 180's slur that anyone who discusses the nature of Nature on a philosophy forum is a "New Age nut", or perhaps a "Muslim and Christian apologist". — Gnomon

This sounds defensive. You borrow my phrase here but I have not said anyone is a Muslim or Christian apologist, just that a few moves made here are reminiscent of their moves. does not seem to be saying this to me. He seems to investigate things and then assesses on the basis of his philosophical reading and understanding what fits into the bogus pile and what does not. Isn't that what you do? Don't most of us do this? The difference is that our piles (and the reasoning which built them) look different.

OK. I apologize for disturbing your "dogmatic slumber". :smile: — Gnomon

Hmm, the borrowed quote is not quite right. Slumber is fine - do you know how difficult it is to get a good sleep? Dogmatic - no. I have no inflexible commitments to any particular account of reality as explained.

Do you know any Atheists or Materialists, who would like to discuss the philosophical ideas in the OP, instead of just putting them in a pigeonhole that can be easily dismissed as bird-sh*t? — Gnomon

I don't think I know any materialists. I would avoid the word materialists and swap it with naturalists, as most would now describe themselves - materialism being understood as too reductive. I would probably consider myself a methodological naturalist but not a metaphysical naturalist. I have not ruled out idealism, for instance.

But for me as a non-scientist, non-philosopher, I do not have the luxury to speculate about the nature of reality. I leave that to the people with qualifications and stratospheric IQ's. My own preference here is that the nature of reality (which apparently is hidden) is mostly unimportant and has no bearing on how I conduct my life.

Well, this is partly why, for Plato, most people have to be left inside the cave, even if the philosopher must descend to recover the whole (since the Good inherently relates to the whole). — Count Timothy von Icarus

My sympathy has always been with those in the cave. Why leave? You have everything you need there, including predictability. Ignorance has its charms and there is something dismissive of the real world (where most of us live) built into the allegory.

What Lewis focuses on is the way in which, traditionally, a major goal of education was a proper orientation towards what is truly good, beautiful, etc., and the development of freedom as self-determination and self-governance. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I understand this outlook and I have read some Lewis. And I have read Roger Scruton who also makes these points rather well. But it's somewhat traditionalist and conservative isn't it? Which doesn't bother me too much, but I can certainly imagine an elaborate critique.

If I could bring one bit of older philosophy back into curricula it would be the tradition of the virtues (originally given the boot on theological grounds at any rate). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand this project and it will help with certain matters and probably enrich civic culture, but will it help us get a useful reading of Derrida or Kant? My concern lies with the often impenetrable complexity of philosophical discourse and literature.

At any rate, I don't necessarily think "good readings" will always align with authorial intent. And we can also have readings where someone takes an authors work to its "logical conclusion," even if the author wanted to avoid that conclusion (e.g. Fichte and Kant). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this is particularly interesting.

However, do you agree 'there is a naturalist (or anti/non-supernaruralist) worldview' of the few in contrast to 'the supernaturalist (or anti/non-naturalist) worldview of the many'? — 180 Proof

Yes, I think that's fair. I dislike The Atheist Worldview because it belongs to those ignorant talking points of Muslim and Christian apologists who have to turn the discourse into a team sport.

Sounds like you are trying to put me in a fervent religious nut box. But I am by nature and by nurture a Stoic dispassionate person. — Gnomon

Just as you insist on putting atheists into fanatic scientism boxes? ( :wink: that's just a quip)

Not at all. I’m an atheist more by aesthetics and emotion than by reason. The argumentation comes after the fact. Theism doesn’t assist me to make sense of the world, so my atheism is ultimately an emotional response. As I’ve often said, belief in gods—or in any supernatural guiding principle—is more like a preference, akin to sexuality. You can’t control what you’re drawn to; the real task is to understand why.

Well I ask mainly because I am interested in why people think certain ways. Some people are theorists and system builders by inclination and see philosophy as an enterprise to build Truth. I think of it more as a series of systems people identify with for various reasons often, it seems to me, these are dispositional and aesthetic, with post hoc reasoning bolted on afterwards.

Yet, the Atheist worldview seems to focus mainly on Entropy, which promises to de-evolve inevitably toward cold dark heat death. — Gnomon

There is no atheist worldview. This is a talking point from William Lane Craig.

Atheism is simply about whether or not you belvie a god exists. Some atheists I know are into theosophy, mysticism, magic, astrology, etc.

I think the group you are thinking of are a particular crew of scientistic secular humanists. Those who feel that they must have an alternative physicalist cosmology to the ones provided by mythologies.

Why is it important? Ask Plato and Aristotle why they produced non-religious theories that have influenced the world for 1500 years. Like them, I remain Agnostic about the pre-bang source of Natural Laws (Logos) and of cosmic causation (First Cause). But I have nothing better to do with my retirement time than to dabble in Ontological & Epistemological philosophy — Gnomon

I'm more interested in the emotional need such cosmology satisfies. It seems to me that some people need answers to certain quesions, others don't. I often wonder why that is.

Does the argument from contingency interest you too?

Can we treat this hot topic, not as a hot potato, but as a legitimate philosophical conundrum? :smile: — Gnomon

Variations of the teleological argument are amongst the most common arguments we hear, so I don't think anyone is saying it isn't a hot topic for many people.

I have even developed a science-based personal worldview that qualifies as an "-ism" (philosophical system). — Gnomon

Why have you found it important to do this?

*1. Accidentalism is a philosophical theory that some events occur without a cause, or that events can happen by chance or haphazardly. It's related to other theories such as indeterminism and tychism. ___Google AI overview — Gnomon

An aside. One of the problems for me is the emotional ladenness of this kind of wording. 'Accident' is already contrived as unfortunate. 'Chance' and 'haphazard' also sound like they have a criticism built into the very wording. It's a way of wrapping it all up as 'meaningful' versus 'dumb luck'... Essentially a William Lane Craig move.

The term "natural laws" also carries the implication of a lawmaker, illustrating how our choice of language can guide us toward specific conclusions and shape a realm of imaginative possibilities. Similarly, the word "design" implies the presence of a designer, though it might more accurately be described as something that 'appears' to exhibit design when viewed from a particular perspective.

I'm not an academic in this field of cosmology, so I won't allow myself the luxury to speculate on things only a handful of experts can understand.

It often feels to me that these kinds of arguments come from former devout Muslim or Christians who in the deconstruction of their faith need to salvage some notions of teleological purpose, but frame them in a scientific language to, perhaps, feel less embarrassed about the conclusion.

No

No, it was a gradual change, which is why I have insisted here that the difference between philosophical and other modes of expression has to be understood in terms of a spectrum involving qualities auch as depth and comprehensiveness of articulation. — Joshs

I understand. But you appear to have a high intelligence and an innate capacity for speculative thought and high theory. I'm not sure how common this is. Hell, you even know how to read Heidegger :wink:

:rofl:

Speaking of 'elitism', did you ever happen upon John Fowles foray into philosophy, The Aristos? I only read it once, many years ago, but it left an impression. — Wayfarer

Yes, thanks for reminding me. I read it in the mid 1980's and it made an impact.

That is true and that’s a shameful failure of philosophy. The way I see it, wisdom can and does come from anywhere, from anyone at any moment. It’s always a surprise. Wisdom is not merely some reward for the philosopher, or even the mystic. — Fire Ologist

Sure. When I said elitist, it wasn't meant as adverse criticism, more of a context.

I wonder if philosophy is too sprawling an enterprise to narrow it down to wisdom or self-awareness. Not that it can't be those.

I'm more interested in questions of epistemology and metaphysics and those are pretty much off limits unless you are a serious reader and thinker. How many people can truly gain a useful reading of Heidegger or Deleuze, say? Or Kant?

As for wisdom - most of the really wise I have known have not been big readers. They have tended to have a disposition that allows for accumulating wisdom directly through personal experience.

I rather like to think that philosophy is concerned with reality as lived. It's in that sense that it is concerned with the nature and meaning of being rather than the study of what can be objectively assessess and measured. — Wayfarer

This is an interesting strand. I suspect that philosophy is unattainable for most people who lead lives where the barriers to philosophy are significant and sometimes insurmountable. We're never going to understand the difficult problems or comprehend works by significant thinkers. The barriers might be culture, time, priorities, available energy, disposition, lack of education, capacity to engage with the unfamiliar and the complex, etc.

There is something essentially elitist about philosophy, inasmuch as only those with sharp minds and time can really formulate theorised responses to the issues. And sure, all this doesn't stop people from doing the best they can with what they have, but there's a big difference between having read a Camus novel and having a substantive understanding of the subject. As we so often see on this site.

I'm not convinced that even having a smattering of philosophy is helpful. Dare I raise the lamentable matter of the Dunning Kruger effect... That said, I'm not arguing against philosophy, I'm just noting some limitations.

Or... maybe I'm full of shit and we are all fucked. — Fooloso4

That gave me a good laugh. Thanks.

For someone like me, philosophy can only ever be a type of curiosity about what others might be thinking - esp metaphysics and epistemology. I am unlikely ever to get a worthwhile reading of Heidegger, say, or the aforementioned Gerson (whose lectures I have enjoyed). So for me, it's about getting a better overview, especially regarding the ideas which don't instantly resonate with me. I am really keen to better understand ideas I am not drawn to as this may be a clue about what I might need to develop. Someone else out there has to do the mind numbing work on logic and language as well.

It’s a cultural issue. That excerpt basically says that academic philosophy is no longer concerned with deep philosophy, but with the minutia of technicalities. — Wayfarer

This may well be accurate, but it seems to me that the word philosophy is an umbrella term for a range of activities, from the liberating and poetic, to the stultifying and administrative. But most of it probably needs to be tackled and not everyone has the disposition or capacity to embrace each domain of the disciple.

It is the assumption that I question. I think it has more to do with dissatisfaction with the economy, the way they believe the country is going, and a belief that Trump will fix it; or, that any change will be better than what we have now. — Fooloso4

I've watched this from a distance, so I don't really know what happened. A lot of comment on this election result seems to focus on questions of perception. It's payback for the neoliberal elites, sneering at the uneducated in the fly over states; it's perceptions of the economy tanking when it is actually doing ok; it's moral panic - a nation at risk of transgender reassignment; It's a choice between more neoliberalism or embracing an exciting wrecking crew that will dismantle the entrenched old guard.

To what extent was this election driven by a declining faith in established systems and a demand for bold, culture-busting reforms symbolized by Trump? And, if this is the case, is this driven by intensifying polarization and a clash of worldviews?

Quantum mechanics seems to be intelligible via mathematics and it certainly seems to be based on observations of phenomena. — Janus

Ok. I'm not a physicist, but I am reminded of the famous Feynman quote, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Is there not also a difference between science's predictive success versus knowing why?

I think they already do explain their respective phenomenal fields, although perhaps not to the satisfaction of some who demand total unity and comprehensiveness. — Janus

Yes, I suppose this works. I'm curious what others might say. It seems to be a tendentious area.

Give it time and it might explain these phenomena. — jgill

Is that a faith based position? :wink: