I think that is even a vicious circle. Many of the politicians have to act in this way if they want to “survive” inside the powerful sides of the State. Not only a monetary corruption but a social one, like cheating or having “secrets” from others... I guess this is something so unstoppable. — javi2541997

Yes, all that is part of the whole process. Same thing can happen in business.

So it is said. But does it really?

I propose, power instead exposes. Power is literally light. It illuminates the depths of depravity, rather the corruption that already exists in us all. But, also the rationale and compassion those few who have managed to keep the intrinsic goodness we're all born with after living through and successfully rising above the stresses, challenges, and indeed horrors of this life.

I will admit, those who seek it often do so for reasons other than to 'share their compassion' with the whole of society. But this is a simple matter of circumstance.

Thoughts? — Outlander

Lord Acton made this comment and went on to say something like 'great men are always bad men.'

William Pitt (the Elder) said a similar thing - 'Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.'

I think it's true, but not for everyone. Many people who get power (and this is an ill-defined word) end up using/abusing that power in ways that are not ethical. What do you expect to happen when you leave your teenagers at home with the keys to the liquor cabinet when you go away for the weekend? There are a lot of people who are well behaved only because they have never had the opportunity to be otherwise.

I don't think people are born with intrinsic goodness - what's the evidence for that? People are born with capacities to go in many directions. Where they go will depend on personality, the situation and power.

You seem to have this kvetch about the Kantian stealing example, — thewonder

I have a kvetch about the Kantian lying and killing too. :razz: I also think we largely agree.

Yes, a person's enjoyment of BDSM doesn't mean they will overlook being beaten up and robbed.

Yes, the Golden Rule is all about the interpretation - but what isn't? If you are going to cherry pick what is meant by 'others' then the Golden Rule isn't useful. This is raised in the New Testament too. Jesus making the point that even the loathsome Samaritan understood that a person's neighbor can include the 'enemy'.

Interpretation is key to the Golden Rule. If people want to get concrete and literal about it, it can of course be open to the problems associated with individual differences in taste and moral behavior. That's fine. I would think the Golden Rule is meant as a general principle - essentially 'treat others with respect'. Sure there are some outliers with odd preferences but respect does not look all that different around the planet. Do not steal from others, lie to them, kill them, physically harm them.

The Golden Rule is not saying treat people like they share all your preferences (BDSM or fundamentalist Islam, say) it is 'treat people with different preferences with respect as you would want yours treated'.

The GR also has little to say about climate change or use and manufacture of vaccines.

I believe that every major act of violence in history was committed by an individual or group who thought themselves to be following the golden rule, just as today we incarcerate and punish people based on the golden rule. — Joshs

Big claim, Joshs. I admire the chutzpah of it. Can you expand on this perhaps with an example of it in action?

There was a true story about a German man who who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral? — Deus

This is actually a common text book example used to demonstrate one of the challenges with the Golden Rule - which is not a perfect solution. As I already said, the Golden Rule is not concrete - you can use your brain to respond to any situation that doesn't fit. The Golden Rule is an imperfect guide to moral behavior, but it is not moral behavior itself.

So … can we say that this rule is where all morality should stem from? — Deus

This is an old criticism. The Golden Rule is a principle, not mere concrete wording, and generally it means we want our preferences and selves to be treated with respect. This, and almost no one wants to be murdered, stolen from or lied to. Moral behavior is performative, not a science. But of course, like most principles, you can always find a way to push them and distort the point.

I think it would help if you described some examples - you must have an intuition about it or why raise the subject?

It is not clear to me what you wish to discuss?
Things like: What are more common or useful notions?
Immanence vs Transcendence
Supernatural Theism (miracles and interventions) vs. the Laws of Nature
Revealed Religion vs. Meditation and Rational Inquiry
Personal vs Impersonal Notions of the Divine — prothero

Yes - that's where I was heading. Where does this take us?

Ok. Your points didn't seem to be related to Jack's thesis. That's all. Maybe you could develop the point in relation to the OP.

Sorry, you've lost me.

I firmly believe that there are higher forms of consciousness in the universe, probably much higher. After billions of years of universal evolution, perhaps billions of iterations of billions of years, how could there not be? — Pantagruel

I forgot to ask. What evidence do you have for this claim and what does it actually mean? I see the word 'perhaps' nestling uncomfortably with 'firmly believe'.

My view was always that religion was 'the box' and philosophy an attempt to think outside it. Often successfully.

I believe that looking to perspectives outside of the frame of Western philosophy may enlarge our thinking — Jack Cummins

Isn't what a large part of this site is already about? There are numerous threads on Eastern faiths and philosophies, Jung, etc.

But, on the other hand, once we go beyond all 'spiritual' philosophies completely, we can go into a wasteland. — Jack Cummins

I am still waiting for evidence that this is the case. People seem to cite Stalinism or the Nazi's but the connection is far from clear.

But, I do believe that it useful to think about comparative aspects of religion, with a view to whether there are any ideas which seem to stand out beyond the confines of specific cultural conditioning and conventions. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me you are asking - "What ideas from world religions are useful to human beings?"

Is it not a commonplace view that useful ideas are located in many (often unlikely) sources? No doubt there are profound lessons in many novels. Some writers think we only tell the truth in fiction.

What ideas stand out for you in any religion? Maybe you could start by giving a couple of examples so that we can get into the flow of this.

I agree that every argument needs a counter argument…every position an opposition. Atheism needs theism etc. This is good for critical thinking and even if you are a theist you should respect and acknowledge the non belief viewpoint — Deus

Low rent Hegelian? I don't think every argument needs a counter argument, it's there whether you want it or not. The question is why do you think this is important and what has it to do with Jack's OP?

In this case however, the other plans and expectations aligned perfectly with a popular movement that supports anyone who cites mental health issues as the reason for not competing. — Leghorn

I think mental health should take precedence over other things, so what's up?

I don't watch sport or care for it. But I would have thought someone should have the freedom to make a decision to withdraw (from anything) and in most instances we should be able to trust them to make the right choice - given how hard such a choice (in this situation) must be. We don't know what is in people's minds, nor do we know the experiences that contribute towards people's precarious mental health. Everyone is different. It can be very brave to make a choice that goes against plans and expectations.

Based on what reasoning should we conclude that the presence of those things is evidence that God (if he exists) is not benevolent? — baker

Depends on which 'benevolent' God you are talking about.

If we consider the Christian God:

...not a single sparrow can fall to the ground without your Father knowing it. And the very hairs on your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are more valuable to God than a whole flock of sparrows.” (Matthew 10:29-31)

It would seem to be the opposite of benevolence for God to know about natural disasters and starvation and cancer and suffering and let it go unchecked when suffering can be relieved. If humans are valuable to it then this appears to demonstrate a callous disregard. Is it possible for a non-interventionist god to be benevolent?

I am certain any competent theological sophist can make a virtue out of all this.

By the way, I know believers who say that God helps them to get jobs and find parking spaces. That's great. Pity God's inactive on infant leukemia.

I've been vaccinated. Got two doses of Pfizer. No side effects.

Is Most of our behavior determined by human nature or can the general behavior of humans be best described by random chaos? — Cidat

I can't speak for others but I don't find this question coherent. What is random chaos? What is human nature? What do you mean by determined? And how would you measure this?

Is order or chaos the best way to describe How any particular individual behaves? — Cidat

Is this a false dichotomy? How would you determine what is order and what is chaos and how do you establish the causal role either might play in behaviour?

1. It's possible God does not exist.
2. Therefore, it's not possible to know all things that are true and false.
3. If something can't possibly be known to be true, it must be false.
4. The existence of God can't possibly be known to be true
5. The existence of God must be false.

The upshot of being born and raised in old-fashioned Europe is that one did get a classical education. But it's also an education that kills one's interest in the Classics. (There is a cynical saying -- "The Classics are those that everybody knows and nobody reads.") — baker

What do you consider a classical education and at what age?

These things are culturally specific, though. — baker

Of course. Like so many things.

As interpreted by which conductor? — baker

Depends on the recording - I'm not a connoisseur.

People have always directly or indirectly managed their emotions through music (and this is its adaptive utility). And via managing their emotions, their worldview. — baker

Yes. I would have thought human emotional connection to sound and beat helped to build our original impulses. Not hard to see how sounds of nature, bird song and animal calls (representations of threats and pleasures) would have led to music which allowed us to intensify our sense of the numinous, hence chants, sacred song and hymns. And Mahler.

I'm an enthusiast for Aristotle's idea of phronesis—commonly translated as "practical wisdom". I think wisdom is, and can only be, tested by action. "By their fruits ye shall know them". I think this applies to oneself; by your fruits shall ye know yourself—"talk is cheap". — Janus

I am in agreement but what do you think the 'fruits' would actually look like? How do you demonstrate this?

I have recently been presented with Wittgenstein's statement-quote, "The limits of my language mean the limits of my world". I found it quite shallow. — Alkis Piskas

Approaching a philosopher through a single context free quote like it's a bumper sticker is probably not ideal.

In the context of the Tractatus the quote represents the tip of the iceberg. Its repercussions are still being felt.

Moving things along, it seems that for Witty philosophy can't speak of ethics and aesthetics - he refers to as these 'transcendental' - they are essentially outside the factual world philosophers can describe using language. The work of philosophy then rests on demonstrating the limits of thought by demonstrating the tautologies of propositions. Is that correct? Do you think that Witty's approach is still sound 100 years on? I know there is early and later Witty and this can confuse things.

That's why I keep going back to the point about classical philosophy and, I suppose, theology. I think they have perfectly consistent and sound methods of, shall we say, facing up to the transcendent — Wayfarer

I can see that you think that and you argue it well. I guess I can't quite get on board but I am happy to keep mulling over it.

But I don't think Darwinism *is* a philosophy as such. — Wayfarer

Nor do I. It's a context and one that does rest upon metaphysical foundations (shaky or otherwise) that the nature of reality can be understood by us, etc.

But that doesn't mean we're simply 'the products of evolution', as if we were simply the accidental by-product of a meaningless series of biochemical happenstances - frozen accidents, as Dennett says. — Wayfarer

I don't know that we can tell if this is true or not. When I think of 'the examined life' I always come back to the idea that there is only so much examination is actually possible.

From the perspective of Darwinian naturalism, species only have one real purpose or rationale, and that is, to propogate. — Wayfarer

Your assessment may be true and obviously it doesn't reflect how lives are experienced. Can it actually be demonstrated that, for instance, thrilling to a Mahler symphony can't happen if naturalism is true? (lets leave Nagel and Chalmers out of this one).

Modern naturalism assumes that nature can be understood 'in its own right', so to speak, without reference to God or transcendent causes. That is why the claim that the sensory domain may be illusory goes against the grain; because for modern naturalism, nature is the only reality, the touchstone of reality. But I think that calling our native sense of reality into doubt is what scepticism originally meant. It's not like today's scientific scepticism - that nothing is real except for what can be validated scientifically. It is a scepticism that comes from the sense of our own fallibility.

'Fallibilism' in philosophy of science is that hypotheses are only held, pending their falsification by some new discovery. Actually what I'm saying is not too far from that, but it has a wider scope. I think that ancient scepticism was sceptical about our human faculties altogether - that 'the senses deceive', or that the world given to common sense is not as it seems. (And that, in turn, is not far removed from the Hindu intuition of māyā, which, although arising in a different culture, was likewise a product of the 'axial age' of philosophy.)

At issue, is the question of epistemology: what is real? What I started out by saying, is that the setting of Plato's philosophy presumes that there is a real good; Socrates presumes that the world is in such a way that 'things will turn out for the good' (Phaedo 99b-c). Perhaps it's naive, perhaps it's superseded, but that is what's at issue. That is why the question of 'what is good' turns out to involve metaphysics (cf Wittgenstein: 'Ethics are transcendental'). — Wayfarer

I think that's a sound summary. The naturalists I know mostly don't think that the sensory domain is necessarily a true refection of the world, just that it is the most consistently reliable one available to human beings. Naturalism/physicalism is a spectrum of beliefs which, like politics or religion, has a fundamentalist arm and a progressive/reformist one.

The problem with introducing Gods or transcendent causes as potential collaborators in our understanding of 'truth' or 'reality' is that this just adds further mystification since neither God or the transcendent can readily be defined or understood (enlightened sages and visiting messiahs notwithstanding). Or even agreed upon. If we think senses are fallible, try giving conceptual shape and words to the numinous and the ineffable. Have fun meditating.

I've spent a little time in the company of Donald Hoffman's thesis on the nature of reality which is kind of relevant to this discussion. I find it strangely compelling but of course its focus is on the potential flaws inherent in assuming the natural world is real while it provides no solutions I could find as to what reality actually may be and why it matters. And Hoffman's math are beyond me.

I wonder if so much speculative metaphysics is useful and whether or not this is a distraction from the fact that we do seem to have evolved to identify and happily work within a particular version of reality (contested though its parameters might be) that we are right to be skeptical about but can only ignore at our peril. But that's a different matter.

I'm OK with humility, but I have no truck with obedience; that is for pets and children. — Janus

And public servants...

Paraphrasing Churchill, 'materialism' (now sexed-up physicalism) is the most incoherent ontology or inconsistent methodology, no doubt, except for all the varieties of idealism proposed. — 180 Proof

That's pretty funny. :clap:

Anyway, enought argument for the day. I have to go and paint a wall. — Wayfarer

“My daily activities are not unusual,
I’m just naturally in harmony with them.
Grasping nothing, discarding nothing.
In every place there’s no hindrance, no conflict.
My supernatural power and marvelous activity:
Drawing water and chopping wood.”

Layman Pang

I regard a cult as an organization that affords special godlike powers to a single individual who abusively controls his followers, usually by extracting money, limiting contact with family members and close friends who are not followers, demanding free labor, requiring complete allegiance regarding all requests, and often involving requiring sex from anyone within the cult, sometimes with minors. — Hanover

I think that's a fair assessment.

No, I want to know what use is there in reading those old books. Don't just brush this off idly, it's not an idle question.

Is there anything more to it than nostalgia? — baker

I don't want to put words into Wayfarer's mouth but isn't one of his opinions that the post enlightenment worldview, especially that of the current, post-Darwinian era holds a limited physicalist metaphysics and has rejected much wisdom that was ours for millennia? I imagine that these old books contain some of this repudiated knowledge and many other ideas besides worth cultivating.

We have no reference cases for them, so to us they can only appear as statements of feeling or faith. That's my take on it. — Wayfarer

I don't know - give it another 20 years, I suspect the endless and insufferable Marvel movie franchise will spawn a world faith and provide us with a range of post-postmodern Gods and realms worthy of the classical age. Some of us will be longing to get back to Neo-Platonism.

I keep my ego in a leather pouch on my belt.

I don't disagree with you - I am not in the enlightenment business - but a revelatory understanding of all which is true is part of the tradition - which is likely to be a myth.

I personally don't accept that anyone is free of ego. It's more how the ego is managed. Or stage managed...

As I said, I don't deny that enlightenment in the sense of letting go of all egoistic concerns is possible, or that this would be a profoundly transformative state; what I deny is that achieving that state will let anyone see any absolute metaphysical truth. — Janus

Interesting. I have not read about enlightenment traditions for decades. Is it not meant to include an awakening or illumination simultaneously with ego diminution? If not, it would hardly seem to count as enlightenment.

The same pattern can be seen in religious preachers who love to point out how flawed and faulty man is, how flawed and faulty they are. And yet, somehow, despite all those flaws and faults, they were able to choose the right religion and figure out what The Truth is?? — baker

I think this is a useful point - false modesty and the frailties of human decision making are often used as a kind of cover for crass dogmatism.

That is all for today. I would love to hear your personal experiences and views on the subject :) — Transcending

I know of no good reason to accept the proposition that any Gods exist. None of the classical arguments are effective. The only thing we have ever heard about Gods are claims made by people, or in books written by people. Gods remain invisible and silent, as would be appropriate for invented creatures.

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted and heaven crammed with these phantoms. Robert Green Ingersoll

There is no real distinction between a cult and religion. When a religion or group is called a cult it is usually because it is smaller, controls the lives of its members more assiduously, is closed to the wider world, and demands total commitment.

How do I--in a practical sense--resolve this hypocrasy within myself, yet still adhere to my principle of being nonjudgmental when I work as a medic? — Kevin Levites

Not sure I really understand the question - people are entitled to an appropriate medical response - that's your role, regardless of whether they are Nazi's or Quakers. If you treat all people with respect (as I'm sure you do) you can leave the judgments and fears to the others.