Phenomenology doesn t force us to choose between these two but instead puts them together in a much more radical way than the mere cobbling of ‘inner feeling’ and ‘outer things’.

There is only a ‘hard problem’ if one begins from a science which ignores the subject’s perspective ( relativity and qm only take the subject into account as another physical object , which is not what I’m talking about )
and a subject whose ‘values’ are irrelevant to the understanding of ‘external’ reality. — Joshs

As I say I am not qualified to explore this but my minimal understanding of Dennett consist of watching several videos of him summarizing his ideas and a few essays (by him and by detractors), but what you say doesn't seem to fit. He seems to be particularly interested to explore the subjective experience of consciousness, especially qualia and to accurately describe and explain. I understand that people dislike his conclusions.

How would a phenomenological understanding of the subject's experience provide a superior understanding? It almost sounds to me like you are saying if you label things differently the hard problem goes away. Which is not quite the same thing as solving it. Or is it?

There is only a ‘hard problem’ if one begins from a science which ignores the subject’s perspective — Joshs

I can't say if you are correct or not (I am not qualified in the area) but I have never understood how phenomenology can settle anything. I'm assuming a realist not idealist version? Can you elaborate on how using it can help us understand the nature of consciousness? Just some indicative dot points will do.

But if I cringe at Peterson’s treatment of certain philosophers — Joshs

I only have a fleeting knowledge of his work but I am interested in anything that has traction with people - especially if it is public intellectuals. It's the phenomenon that arrests attention. I find it fascinating that JP seems to have riffed off Stephen Hicks' views on post modern Marxism without understanding that he is really referring to Frankfurt School figures, for the most part, not so much post modernists.

have a hard time understanding the basic premise. The idea that there was once some kind of "golden era" or "an enchanted time" when people took religion seriously (including actually believing in God) seems alien to me. — baker

It's kind of Nietzsche-lite. The elevator pitch -The fate of our times is characterized by rationalization and intellectualization and, above all, by the disenchantment of the world.

There are several mysteries which seem essential to the philosophical quest; the existence of God, free will and, life after death. — Jack Cummins

On these I guess there'll be loose affiliations of folk who take three main approaches. Some will say the questions have been answered already. Some will argue they are non-questions. And others will claim they will remain forever, like the Trinity itself, a mystery.

I have no reason to think there is a God or life after death. Free will? I don't know. I used to think I was a compatiblist, but I haven't read enough about the issue to get properly across it.

To be honest these questions have never really interested me passionately. I often used to joke that if there is a god it's none of my business.

I am more interested in aesthetics and morality and perhaps the nature of reality - eg, Platonism versus naturalism. Limitations are time, educational background and energy. I am pretty lazy and content enough in my ignorance.

Incorrect. Climate science is clearly empirical. — Wayfarer

No, my point is the denialists say and think similar things about science (not talking about factual accuracy). You only have to read Andrew Bolt in Australia (the Murdoch puppet) who disparages science on climate change in similar wording you used - pop-science/lousy arguments and borrowed prestige.

I was going to riff on Weber myself... this and charismatic authority are by two standbys.

The way I put it is that religious fundamentalists appeal to science to prove the existence of God. Scientific materialists appeal to science to argue the non-existence of god. — Wayfarer

I've also made that point myself. Always reminded me of that last line in Animal Farm The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

the pop-intellectual-science types wrongly appeal to the prestige of science in support of their generally lousy arguments. — Wayfarer

I get this. Problem is people also ignore climate science for similar professed reasons. I think science and the notion of the expert is very poorly tolerated these days. Elites and all that. And I certainly understand this impulse. There is a Nieszchian feel to all this.

Did God ever live? — baker

We answered that earlier. It's a metaphor.

But there are also lumbering dimwits in religious and new-age circles. It doesn’t discriminate. :-) — Wayfarer

I don't think we'd ever disagree on that. But hey, let's not let a little thing like the meaning of life come between us. :pray:

It’s significant that you perceive this criticism as ‘hatred’. Says something, I think. — Wayfarer

It is significant but not the way you insinuate. :smile: It's not me perceiving animosity any more than you are perceiving dogmatic reductionism every time someone says Daniel Dennett. Well, actually - I think you are... did you not call his life's work a schtick recently? Nevertheless, as I've written, I have kicked around with a lot of people who embrace a range of what I will call New Age beliefs (for want of a better umbrella term). They almost all hate science and anything which (as one woman I know unironically and memorably stated) 'robs the world of magic.' My philosophy tutor (a Gnostic as it happens) many years back called science 'a pseudo-religion for dumb-arses'. I think I've seen some of that language here. The vitriol and hatred I have heard for Dawkins and Sam Harris over the years is enthusiastic. And I don't even like them much myself. I posit that the hatred is because they rob the world of magic. And yes, I figure you will probably argue, if it is hatred it's because of their poorly reasoned philosophy. :wink: Could they both mean the same thing?

I was hoping for more from you but that's just me I guess. I get what you're saying - every situation has its own unique features that preclude any attempts at generalization - and I'm with you on that score. Nevertheless, isn't it rather mysterious that the laws of nature which are, scientists claim, universal in scope should give rise to a world in which no laws seem to cover all cases? Going by your responses, you seem interested enough in this topic and so, I would like to submit a request to you and it's to find, if you're up to the task, some rationale why a solid bedrock of universal laws (the so-called laws of nature) should give rise to a world (the world where sayings are meaningful) in which there are no such laws (each saying is applicable in different situations and no saying covers every situation) at all? — TheMadFool

One of the problems is the use of the word laws. This kind of smuggles in a lawmaker. The laws of logic are more properly known as foundations of reason. They appear inviolable. No one knows why, although an Islamic or Christian apologist would say God is the guarantor of these. All laws are true only because they emanate from God's nature. God is the lawmaker. When we can't explain something we say 'the magic man did it."

Do we discover these laws or are they simply how we are capable of seeing what we call reality?

Now, if I maybe so bold, your task is to provide an explanation similar to the one I did for heavier-than-air flight i.e. try and come up with how the "apparent" disharmony of mutually contradictory sayings is an illusion and that there's actually an underlying harmony. — TheMadFool

Right back at ya... I'll give you this. The answer is the Tao. For a given statement, the opposite is also true.

What is and what is not create each other. High and low rest on each other. First and last follow each other.

We can now return to the mysticism thread.

I hear you. I have seen people try to apply the foundations of reason to folk wisdom before and it can't work. I guess where you were coming from may have been the principle of non-contradiction - a thing isn't what it isn't. It that's so (and it is) - why would there be contradictions in folk wisdom? Answer - because, unlike logic, folk wisdom consists of sayings which are not tautologies or absolutes. They are situational recommendations.

I guess me not being a "Jungian" to any degree – I abhor psychotherapy, like psychoanalysis & behaviorism, and any other psychological practice which is not rooted in contemporary brain science or cognitive neuroscience (I've done graduate work in cognitve psychology and respect approaches like CBT immensely) – the notion of "finding a viewpoint which is satisfactory from our psychological point of reference" is anathema to me as specimen of pseudo-philosophy (i.e. "psychologism" as per Husserl). — 180 Proof

:clap:

The point is, it addresses your question of 'what is not grounded in the physical'. It's a question that doesn't have an easy answer, but then, you did ask! — Wayfarer

Few matters have easy answers. Try getting hold of a plumber over Easter.

:up:

Check out this discussion. — Wayfarer

Yeah, Interesting stuff - I skimmed through it. I simply can't comment as much of the discussion seems theoretical and speculative and none of us here (I suspect) have the qualifications to assess the merits of the arguments at the advanced levels necessary.

but you're resigned that it should all come to naught on your watch? — counterpunch

What on earth makes you say that? You need to stop being so jumpy. :smile: I am simply speculating that we will end. I suspect pandemics or war are just as likely to do the job as rapacious corporate fuck- the-world culture. That said, you have no way of knowing what I or anyone else has done or does outside of a little forum.

What methodological naturalism is particularly unsuitable for , I would argue , is the understanding of myriad psychological phenomena ( , etc). For these domains I prefer a radical constructivism. — Joshs

I hear you. I take the view that consciousness , affect, empathy, language , sociality, take care of themselves and can be measured and understood. The hard problem of consciousness... I suspect science will resolve this one day and may already have come close, but people seem to absolutely hate and revile physicalist understandings of subjects they prefer to remain mysterious and connected to, shall we call it, God? The hatred for Daniel Dennett's theories (and I have no capacity to judge whether he is correct or not) is astonishing. Read some of David Bentley Hart's wonderfully vituperative reviews of Dennett's ideas. I love DBH even though I'm not in the worship business. He's a profoundly smart and flexible thinker with a tendency towards Hitchens-style polemics - coming from the other direction.

Btw, please don’t tell me you prefer Jordan Peterson to Nietzsche. — Joshs

Why do people assume someone supports Peterson just because he's referenced? I think the JP phenomenon is very interesting. I have not read anything by him but watched several lectures and interviews. I am interested in popular culture and what gains traction. I also think with Peterson many people are terribly jealous and resentful that someone like him has come along and become huge when they think they are so much smarter and better informed than Peterson. It's like all those amateur musicians who hate the success of popular artists and disparage them wherever possible. Pop-culture throws up some odd things. JP is one of the oddest I've seen.

Ok so you are being very careful with definitions. I'm slow so I am needing more to take this to any kind of practical conclusion.

I suspect the brain is analogous to a receiver~transmitter in some basic respect, rather than an originator of information. — Wayfarer

Could be. What I tend to see is the human capacity for imitation. We are magnificent copyists. Sometimes we copy better than the originals and then riff.

That would be is antithetical to Nietzsche’s thinking. — Joshs

Could be. I've not been much interested in Niezsche's thinking to be honest. I find his style grandiose and turgid and (for me) thoroughly unreadable. Tried several of his books and never got more than about a third though any of them.

But all my life people have been throwing the Death of God at me (some of these where highly qualified academics I have known) I was curious what people thought about the thesis. And I recently noticed J B Peterson flogging the idea too so I figure the pop-culture is toying with it. I have read the relevant chapters in Zarathustra and The Gay Science and find them typically flamboyant. I think a sympathetic reading of his idea, however, is not without merit.

In relation to science - is there any method of acquiring reliable knowledge better than methodological naturalism? People can talk about contemplative insights or meditation all they want but where are the results, other than in personal experience? Good science is just a tool for providing us with the best models we currently have, it should not make higher truth proclamations.

Thank you. Getting closer, but I still don't quite get your drift. I don't have any philosophical learning and I am not a physicist or even much interested in the minutia of science. My understanding of physicists is they vary in their definitions of physicalism. Here all I see is things which are the product in some way of physical processes. I don't see how behavior or any activities such as those listed could exist without physical events or measurable things.

Can you possibly take one of these and tease out the details?

I hear you on this - this position has many adherents but what can we actually do? Is it even worth advocating individualism if there is no way to put this into practice - other than revolution and we know how they tend to end up?

I agree, as a dominant species humans have a use-by date and the planet will be just fine without us.

Sorry Banno I'm not great on cryptic one word answers. I can't think of much that doesn't have a physical basis to it. Can you be a bit more nuanced? Panpsychism; psychophysical parallelism .. any fancy words... compass points?

Physicalism ought be avoided.

Physicalism is the view that only the description of the world provided by physicists is true.

Physicalism is an all-and-some theory, describing a haunted universe.

It pretends to be part of the body of knowledge called physics, but it is not canon.

It can be spotted by identifying areas of overreach, such as "it is as meaningless to view the universe as composed of parts". — Banno

What is the alternative?

I am a philosophical anarchist (when I must think :)) because I believe that if you get any more than a few people together, all hell breaks loose. The best hope for man remains his individual spiritual development.

And I am not sure I would agree with your assessment that man is inherently good. Again, I believe the best hope in this regard is to minimize group activity. The history of the world is replete with horror after horror in the name of every damn thing. Individuals can only do so much harm whereas groups are capable of unspeakable crimes committed on a regular basis. — synthesis

There's a lot of truth to this. I've never been a fan of individualism but I also dislike group think and collectivist policing. But how the hell do you re-engineer the entire world of billions around individual lines? Do you have some non-theoretical, practical solutions?

Whatever meaning we find is a meaning we create. — Fooloso4

That makes a lot of sense. But when that meaning, however inadequate, becomes the worldview of a culture and all institutions and values are built around it for many centuries there may be a magnificent price to pay for its diminution or cessation.

Do you know of any philosopher who is actually anti-science in the way you mean it?
— Joshs

Perhaps Wittgenstein. Although it may be more of an attack on scientism. — Fooloso4

Paul Feyeraband comes to mind.

It seems to me that only a theorist could potentially write off science as they cheerfully embrace all of its fruits and technologies in their congenial universities. In life theory doesn't much matter. No one worries about the problem of induction when they are parking their car in the supermarket lot.

:up:

It seems to lack the, how shall I put it, oomph factor I'm looking for. — TheMadFool

I've spent my life looking for the oomph factor. Let us know if you find it.

've seen this claim before and I really doubt it is even possible (I know this is irrelevant to the rest or your post, sorry). — emancipate

It seems impossible, right? I've heard Bloom interviewed on this claim. Before he died he said that in old age he slowed down to 500 pages an hour.

I don't think there's a scientific account of why those kinds of talents ought to exist, not even to mention that musical genius has no obvious connection to biological adaptation. Not that I'm saying I have a better theory, other than some vague sense of there being a collective consciousness of some kind, that takes birth in such forms. But I would never try and persuade anyone of the truth of such an idea. — Wayfarer

Hmm. I can't say I can definitively explain great talent but it seems to me that some forms of autism (for instance) come with exceptional gifts and I don't think this necessitates access to a special realm of ideas. Some brains are odd. The critic, Harold Bloom, was able to read and process 1000 pages in little over an hour with almost total recall. He could read the entire novel Don Quixote during lunch and provide insightful analysis. I don't think this involved archetypes either but I do think it fits into the general realm of remarkable capacity. People with musical ability have a great knack for mimicking or reproducing and embroidering on patterns and formulas (which is essentially how music works - having studied the violin and learned to memorise songs after one or two hearings, I have some idea of this although I was no Mozart) I suspect some brains are just abnormally fecund.

Can you do both at the same time? — TheMadFool

Pretty sure that's not how they work. They are separate maxims for separate situations trading in the same thematic material.

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. (Describes a meeting I attended on Monday made some quick decisions to get things done) Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly (Describes last Thursday when I spent over 2 hours on a budget for next year ensuring careful planning led to no mistakes.)

You chose the maxim that describes best the situation as you see it. The wisdom part is knowing which one applies.

No I don't see the problem. They are both true or both false. These are not logical absolutes, they are folk sayings applied to individual situations.

hat they contradict each other is still an unresolved problem. — TheMadFool

I don't see how this is a problem. They are both true. It is the context or utility that determines the truth value of the maxim.

For instance- cleaning up after a messy party - many hands make light work. Writing a film script - too many cooks spoil the broth.

Yep. Generic wise sayings are like off the rack suits. Hit and miss and not to be examined too closely.

Yes, this is also similar to a routine by the well known stand up comedian Slavoj Zizek - he uses these contradictions to argue that wisdom is useless and a counterfeit of genuine knowledge. Or something like that.

recommend her much more concise Platonic work The Sovereignty of Good. — 180 Proof

It's been a while - some of her writing has a rare power.

As soon as any idea is a consolation the tendency to falsify it becomes strong: hence the traditional problem of preventing the idea of God from degenerating in the believer's mind.
― Iris Murdoch, The Sovereignty of Good

:cheer: How does Tom Waits explain evil? "There ain't no Devil, there's just God when he's drunk."

Do you happen to know the reference? — ernest meyer

The quote I have is:
The pure concept, however, or infinity, as the abyss of nothingness in which all being sinks, must characterize the infinite pain, which previously was only in culture historically and as the feeling on which rests modern religion, the feeling that God Himself is dead...

I think it is from the Phenomenology of Spirit

Nietzsche was a trouble maker. He spoke in aphorisms and metaphors. He obviously did not think God had died and was, to some extent, borrowing that phrase, probably from Hegel. He though the era of the Enlightenment had radically changed the culture and this project would end up in disaster. He was in the end trying to draw our attention to a paradigm shift.

Nicely put. Thank You.