Was it a vid worth the time?

Edit: this might be interesting: SIX SIGNS OF SCIENTISM — Banno

I though the vid was good. I'll check this out too. Cheers.

I think my head hurts.

Recently watched a very measured lecture on science by Susan Haack - Science, Yes; Scientism, No. Do you rate her?

Is emotional intelligence a real thing? Or is it shorthand for something more complex? Perhaps it is how people manifest the big five personality traits. There is a vast literature on this.

extraversion (outgoing/energetic vs. solitary/reserved)
agreeableness (friendly/compassionate vs. critical/rational)
openness to experience (inventive/curious vs. consistent/cautious)
conscientiousness (efficient/organized vs. extravagant/careless)
neuroticism (sensitive/nervous vs. resilient/confident)

Agreeableness and conscientiousness would probably explain what some people describe as emotionally intelligent. People low on agreeableness are often described as unable or unwilling to read the room.

People on the Autism spectrum may be experienced as not reading other's queues and perhaps not having a theory of mind which impacts on what people are calling EI. Sociopaths don't care about other's emotions. And many people work in cultures where having empathy and being able to understand others is not valued.

Are people generally less able to pick up on other's needs today than they were, say, 30 years ago? In my experience (which is limited and anecdotal), I have no reason to think it is any worse.

Your goals are connected to ego concerns and I think we have to be aware of them. — Jack Cummins

I've never been able to reflect on 'we' I don't really know who 'we' is, but I am somewhat acquainted with myself - as per the ancient Greek injunction 'Know Thyself.'

Appreciated.

And Dewey refers certainties (e.g. permanence, essence) as instances of "the philosophical fallacy" in Nature and Experience. — 180 Proof

Quick digression - if I were to pursue either Dewey or Peirce (or James) who would you recommend? This is for usefulness, not historical interest. Susan Haack interests me too.

Why is the general public view of philosophy so negative? — baker

I missed this one. Is the view negative? I think many people are suspicious of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals (not always unreasonably so). Philosophy is often depicted as a rarified intellectual pursuit and it doesn't exactly recommend itself with dynamic results and user friendliness.

We're in this because we pursue certainty. — baker

That's curious. I think I am looking for new experiences in the form of ideas.

Krishnamurti said something about the quest for certainty being the start of servitude or bondage.

People's interest in a particular philosophy is aligned with their preexisting tendencies. — baker

I would tend to agree with this.

Sorry Baker. Not sure I have ever envied anyone's certainty. I am generally suspicious of certainty but it depends on the context.

Don't tell my mum...

That's neurosis, not skepsis. — 180 Proof

Guilty. I am much more interested in myself than in reality. :razz:

Still, the monotheists characteristically operate with the idea that they are "right about God", that they know the truth about God and everything related to God.

The religious, generally, have the conviction, the confidence that they are right about morality, and they refer to some external source for this. They quite distinctly have no sense that their beliefs about morality are somehow to any extent of their own making.

This is enviable, don't you think? — baker

Not inevitable. I have watched several Christian apologists struggle to deal with this point. But what they think isn't important. My point is to provide a response on religious morality.

might I suggest that the difficulty in obtaining answers may have something to do with not fully understanding where you’re from, what you are or where you’re going.... — Possibility

You can suggest it, but you'd be wrong. :razz:

Where Are We From? What Are We? Where Are We Going — Jack Cummins

I am indifferent to the painting and the questions.

Self-reflection works for some people and many questions will do. Seems to me it is often the wrong people who are self reflective - those who need to reflect don't and those who don't need to often paralyse themselves with fruitless, churning self-analysis.

These three questions do not interest me anywhere near as much as: What Am I Doing? What Do I Want? Who am I? I regularly find myself pondering these as I go about my business. It is not always possible to obtain answers.

Conspiracy? It's all a question of perspective isn't it? Yes, we are lied to. Yes, governments and corporations are shonky. Yes, the rich manipulate legislation to increase and maintain fortunes and other advantages. But the question is how far do you go and how many dots do you join together in your quest for an overarching explanation? People like to see dots everywhere...

We seem naturally attracted to overarching explanations and nothing seems to me more natural than a conspiracy. Humans like to think this way. Even in small groups, in businesses and workplaces, you hear staff building small conspiracies about why they didn't get a promotion, or why X did get one, or how a particular deal was 'really' made. Generally it's bullshit. It's probably the shadow side of our drive to make meaning.

Seems to me we need a new word for the kinds of conspiracies that invoke aliens or impossible, racially driven conspiracies.

The appeal of conspiracies is easy to understand. We love gossip; we love to be in procession of 'the truth'; we love to have awareness of things the rest of the world doesn't understand; we love to have someone to blame; we love to stand in opposition to the bad guys. Religion anyone...?

Religion doesn't provide a stable moral foundation. As we have all probably noticed, even within a single religious tradition, morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be though interpretation of scripture or 'knowing' what God's will is.

Christians, for instance, vary greatly when it comes to morality. Some believe women should just be housewives; some think they can be scientists and lawyers and the family breadwinner. Some hate gay people, others are gay friendly. Some believe in capital punishment, others fight against it. Some think being wealthy is God's reward, others think Jesus demands personal poverty and sacrifice. Some are against abortion, others are pro-choice. Christian morality includes the KKK (a Christian organisation) and the ministry of Martin Luther King.

In other words, Christian morality is derived from the personal preferences of a believer or what their pastor tells them it is. Religion does not provide any moral certainty, only the illusion of certainty.

It seems to me the whole point of the physical sciences is to increase the human population — FrancisRay

No. It is more of a by product in some limited areas pertinent to human health.

"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it. — Apollodorus

I am aware of this argument. My point is that if Nazi's were ostentatiously godless, as is often argued, they would have deliberately chosen something more pagan or secular, perhaps 'Adolf Wants Me For A Sunbeam'.

You're on fire, Banno...

We posted at the same time...

It is all about obedience, self pity, resentment, conformity, hatred of life , all the things which Nietzsche accusses Christianity of. Jesus however was a strong, courageous, independent minded person. — Ross Campbell

V is pointing to N's ideas which clearly stand against organised views like Nazism. The date isn't relevant.

Remember N said Christianity failed because the last true Christian died on the cross. Pretty sure N didn't think Jesus was a real person but a contrived myth which grew out of control. I personally disagree with N on Christian compassion.

Contrasting virtuous Christianity with depraved Nazism is no great intellectual achievement. The Nazi's did not base their ideas on Nietzsche and seemed to be very keen to have the support of Christianity - which they often received. They also had "God is with us" festooned on Nazi/Wehrmacht belt buckles.

:razz:

The ego, the emotional part of our psyche, wants to be reassured in its emotional needs and therefore tends to seek out — Apollodorus

Very true. People also live beholden to the shadows of their parents and schooling and peer groups and often fail to take adventures elsewhere for fear of upsetting what they experience as the natural order.

Got you. It seems the culture wars have bread a generation of internecine suspicions that lend themselves so easily to a grand conspiracy behind all historico-political events, including the origins of little philosophy websites.

This thread has taken an....odd turn. — T Clark

My fault? If it is, sorry.

Well, Nietzsche hated Nazis along with "Christianity."
See the Genealogy of Morals for details. — Valentinus

This.



The Nazi's made use of Christianity's centuries of anti-semitism including Martin Luther's fulminations against Jews. It's likely Nietzsche would have thought the Nazi's a bunch of tossers and cowardly conformists. His sister certainly cultivated Hitler and tried to skew her brother's ideas to support him.

The case of more reflective and analytical minds is of course a different story. That's why I said that believers need to be classified according to their capacity of reflective thought. — Apollodorus

Sure, I wasn't making any comment about your need for classification. My own belief is that reflective thought is also often a product of people's emotional lives and concomitant personality traits. It is not necessarily connected to education or intelligence or choice. Some people are frankly too frightened of life to engage in reflection. In all this the salient question is always to what extent people will be rewarded or punished for doing this - by their own thought systems or by the family and culture they live in.

*shrug* You can mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts. — bert1

You were serious? I thought you were having a quiet mock there yourself so I had a riff on it.

The people who post here seem to be from a very broad range of views. There's the usual mix of cranks, monomaniacs, untheorized hopeless cases, educated smugnesses, political bores, insightful gems, helpful thinkers, wannabe gurus and the curious ignorant (I am in this latter category).

The word "love" suggests an emotional approach to the issue. When emotions are involved, matters may get more complicated. — Apollodorus

I didn't say they were exactly the same, just that they are both examples of things you don't choose.

But you may be onto something, A- it may not be wrong to say people come to ideas for emotional reasons. Now how would you test for that?

I'm not sure if "close minded" is the right word. Maybe just "unreflective"? I think most people are like that in many different ways. When we're busy living our lives we don't always have the time or energy to reflect on our beliefs. — Apollodorus

I think you are largely right. Plus people often require a reason to change outlooks. It's not something you generally do without a trigger.

I often encounter philosophers and thinkers discussing beliefs, as if they are products of our choosings. Some even blame people for having irrational or false beliefs. But how much of control do we even have over our beliefs? — Curious Layman

I don't think you can choose your beliefs any more than you can choose who you love. That said, most of us can readily alter our views about a neutral subject when new information becomes available. Less neutral and ontologically important beliefs, such as political affiliations, theism, etc, only seem to change if there is a revelation or trigger event. But you do not choose to change them.

I also think some people change their beliefs incrementally - over a lengthy period - as their overall beliefs evolve over years, like a mosaic changing colour, tile by tile.

I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist. — bert1

My understanding is it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation under a subsidiary of the Fabianism and post-modern Marxist funny handshake collective.

Do you agree that , there are some goals that are good for you than some other goals....

I mean , goal 'A' will not be good for you as goal 'B' will be. — No One

I'm not quite sure what a goal is in this context. I sometimes make plans; I rarely set goals. Are they the same?

have you considered the possibility that you’re a psychopath? — Wayfarer

Or he's an atheist. We all know that if there is no God, anything is permitted.

You caught a boot. — Wayfarer

We're going to need a bigger boot.

If you have to ask, you're not part of it. — baker

You must be if you have time for philosophy on this site.

It's not that the left is simply bad at articulating a rival narrative, it's that the left, if we take it as a whole doesn't have one. — Echarmion

Maybe. For me it seems - and this is loose - to be the case that the left split and privileged a cultural left over the reformist left and it's clear, where I live, that many working people no longer identify with the left and its causes. It's heartland is cities and the educated. Hence the conservative cry of elites around so much left or 'progressive' social policy.

But, in practice its restricted to those whom we most care about. — Shawn

It has to start somewhere. Pretty hard to rear young without empathy.

I always thought empathy was the initial impulse behind ethics.

I wouldn't say that's an objective statement. Atheists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot murdered more millions in one century than Christians did in the whole history of Christianity. — Apollodorus

I can't talk to the statistical comparison. In your view is there a connection between atheism and mass murder or are mass murderers more likely to be atheists. Or both. Or is there another factor behind this?