Nicely put. Reification?

Our media landscape is a disaster. — StreetlightX

Yep - has been for years. I wonder when Rupert dies (I will throw a small party) if his company will continue to fuck the world with Lachlan in charge. Or will it just crumble and powder like an excavated Egyptian mummy opened up on a Cairo street?

Bloody killjoy! :razz:

In my opinion, if there legitimately is transcendent meaning for us to discover, finding it can alleviate at least some of the psychological and emotional suffering and discomfort that many people endure by showing them that life is not inherently limited to this brief window of experience we get while we are here. — Paul Michael

That's certainly what critics of religion argue - that it provides an anodyne for suffering.

I suspect however that a transcendent meaning will only serve to magnify feelings of cosmic injustice and misery - how to explain the death of babies and childhood cancer and the unbelievable savage cruelty of nature... If all is just physicalism then, so what? But if it was designed this way by a transcendent being or force, then what a staggeringly wasteful and vile approach to being this is. Of course believers can always cobble together justifications or escape clauses.

In a way, yes. I agree with philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup who essentially say that physicalism/materialism tends to suck the transcendent meaning out of life. — Paul Michael

This is certainly a common view. I wonder if life would be any less tedious or fraught if idealism holds true. What do you suppose is the advantage of transcendent meaning?

In other words, it would give us a better grasp on the fundamental nature of reality, which could benefit us by allowing us to see ourselves in a broader context of consciousness. — Paul Michael

Generally underlying a question like this is an attempt to locate some kind of transcendent meaning that perhaps can't be found in physicalism (however we define this latter term). Is this where you are heading?

Lack of consensus doesn't mean that nobody knows; but it can mean that only some know and others don't. — baker

Maybe my language was sloppy. It doesn't mean nobody knows. But it also doesn't mean somebody does. How would we know?

I got ya. I agree completely. As an occasional advisor to a various departments over the years, I've seen precisely this.

In a larger sense, is a meritocracy unfair? — jgill

That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it? I can't say that I have ever seen a meritocracy in action anywhere. It sounds idealistic.

it was almost laughable. This is common sense. If I were to start somewhere it might be wondering about that. — kudos

Oh do tell. Which bit was common sense and which bit was laughable or were they the same bit?

You have a large section of the population who have invested heavily in something: something that grants them certain powers and privileges. I'm not saying they're blocking anyone from happiness, or there's anything wrong with universities teaching kids to succeed in their field. But there is a system in place that poses a potential for a class divide and an ideological crisis. That's all, no blame or anything on anyone, just plain old crass cynicism. — kudos

Agree. Is there a clear alternative? Isn't it necessarily the case that higher skilled expertise will likely be more useful and better paid than an unskilled role? It might be good if minimum wages and conditions for less skilled workers were much higher, but that's a separate matter.

What contribution does this yin/yang variation make to human life?

Is there a definition for playing darts? — Varde

Yes. The very clear rules of what constitutes a darts game. There is even a darts regulation authority.

or what I call 'special arts', are also skills. — Varde

Just because you call them 'special arts' means little to the rest of the world.

Therefore art has no definition — Varde

There is a long tradition of aesthetics that would say otherwise. It would probably be more accurate to say there are many, many definitions of art and no agreed upon canonical definition.

Martial arts is a skill. Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Creating Audio, or what I call 'special arts', are also skills. — Varde

But one traditional issue in art criticism is how to identify the art as opposed to the skill. Technical skill is often seen as sitting separate from whether something has artistic merit. Pulp fiction author Stephen King is a writer of great technical skill but few would call his work 'art'. Also how do you separate art from craft? Another traditional distinction.

IE, within modernism are many different approaches, as with postmodernism, but for me the primary dividing line within art is the presence or absence of the aesthetic. — RussellA

Interesting. Are you someone who thinks art has a responsibility?

Does your perspective risk a subjectivist aesthetic? Is all post-modern art free of aesthetic merit and how does one go about identifying what counts as the aesthetic and what does not?

Post-modern work is likely to have an aesthetic, it just doesn't concern itself with beauty. Modernist (capital M) work like Braque's Cubism has an aesthetic too, but is it beautiful? Cannot something which is 'ugly" (however you define this) not also provide a profound aesthetic experience?

Can you clarify how you would apply your modernist perspective to pre-modern era work? Say a Titian.

Are you going by an account of aesthetics rooted in modernist theory, or are you just using the terms as you see them apply?

Also, I'm not saying this to advertise theism. But if we are going to dismiss the one epistemic method that has been the primary epistemic method for what is probably the vast majority of the human population, then we're going to need some really good reasons for doing so. — baker

Is this epistemic or imaginative? Who can really say they know God? Well, I know they can say it, but it's hardly plausible. A figure of speech. Even my local Priest says the moment he hears a member of his Parish say they have a personal relationship with Jesus he expects either insanity or a narcissist.

(we ultimately do not know)
— Tom Storm
How can you say that?? Based on what?? — baker

Based on the fact that philosophers hold different views on the subject. And there is no accepted definition of what consciousness is. But hey, I may well be wrong - it is common sense that humans have consciousness - that's kind of why I am curious.

Coming Through Slaughter Buddy Bolden imagined by Michael Ondaatje

As someone who doesn't understand religious language, the only inference I see is that people imagine all kinds of things but it doesn't make those things real.

The inference is not involved in the experience, which, sans inference is just affect, but in what we call the experience, and what we take its significance to be.. — Janus

I don't follow.

Enter idealism discussion.

:pray: Thanks.

Just speculating here: in a few centuries, science fiction will cease to be a genre; all of the possibilities explored in these books will either have been accomplished, or found to be impossible. — darthbarracuda

As you say, speculation. I would imagine the more we achieve, the bigger the fantasy life.



Nicely contextualized. :up: It's important not to read 'end of history' in literal or apocalyptical terms.

“Art is an expression of human consciousness. Art work is information about the artist’s consciousness.” In order to define something you need to specify it’s unique attributes. Your definition only identifies information and human consciousness, nothing specific to art. It is not a definition of art and has no explanatory power in regards to art. — praxis

That's for sure, several pages of no particular insight into what art is, as opposed to, say, the act of nose picking - which may also hold information about a person's consciousness.

I can appreciate the difference between subjectivity and objectivity, but it should be an aesthetic value, not an epistemic value. — Enrique

Can you expand a little? Aesthetic?

If people are basing beliefs on Murdoch owned media or dubious self-appointed YouTubers, they are likely to hold erroneous beliefs.

Perhaps, but I'm not an actual philosopher so all I have is language. :razz:

The left and the right meet at the extreme back end. I work in the area of health services and directly liaise with government. I don't need to see anything about COVID on line. Empiricism. :wink:

I don't have much of a foundational springboard. How I justify a belief generally depends on the nature of that belief. Most of my beliefs can be tested empirically. The others are based on presuppositions, I make no claims of consistency or coherence.

Yes, that's along the lines I was thinking.

I hold a belief that almost any news from tendentious Youtube sites is bullshit.

Which is why skepticism is more than just a pretty name...

I understand W. I heard this from David Bentley Hart too when he was going after the implacable Dennett. I remain ambivalent.

A happy Sisyphus who sings the blues. :death: :flower: — 180 Proof

That's wonderful and sounds likes a fitting statement for a grave marker.

. I suspect even atheist-types have some deep-rooted superstitions.. — schopenhauer1

The only thing atheists have in common is one thing - a lack of belief in God. Some may also believe superstitions.

Who here thinks that if they question the "game of life" that god setup and call god immoral, that they will be cursed by that very same god for calling him immoral? — schopenhauer1

I personally lack a sensus divinitatis so I have never held a belief in any kind of supervisory being or higher consciousness. Humans are driven to make meaning so it's hardly surprising that along the way we've created any number of fantastical creatures - trolls and elves and fairies and spirits and gods.

Maybe, but there are thousands of tendentious channels and websites run by ideological crackpots. What does it prove?

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. You seem to be making up a worldview.

Packer makes good points.

I'm not sure that politics as practiced involves coherent beliefs, more like loose themes and perceptions. The main game is getting elected and appealing (however that looks) to a base which is constantly evolving. In practice politics is marketing.

The belief of the existence of evil, at all, is what allows for the infinite manifestations of evil that we experience daily. — PseudoB

Can you expand - I don't understand the point.

If we consider that in the beginning all was perfect, then this negates the existence of evil.... That is of course until we are presented with the knowledge thereof. — PseudoB

I guess you would need to accept this myth or the point doesn't hold.

Do you think your OP is intelligible to anyone who doesn't hold religious or spiritual beliefs?

Isn't it simply the case that politics has become tribal and dumbed down around themes such as freedom versus social control and that tribalism is galvanised along principles such as 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'?