but then As a motif in fiction, the mad scientist may be villainous (evil genius) — TheMadFool

I think they are. For example: someone, one day, thought about the creation of a nuke bomb. Then, this dream/idea put it on reality. This is could be one of the worst things created by humans. They are genius for creating such complex arm but evil too. I don’t want to underrate them as scientists because somehoe we have to understand the context but I rather see a poet or an artist showing their nightmares than a scientific put in practice the reason.

"Very true. Is this what happens when religion fades?"

Those who agree with Max Weber's View of the Disenchanted World, agree that the loss of religious values brought about the decay of society, turning a society based on judeo-christian values into a "sick" individualistic, moral relativistic and atomised society where people are too focused on authenticity and self-realization. I believe Charles Taylor is right when he says this is an inauthentic form of "authenticity", because it doesn't recognize the necessity for community and recognition in identity formation. All I'm doing is echoing Taylor's arguments. If you have time, please watch this very interesting lesson - full of self-evident truths I didn't see because they were too close to my lived experience:smile: : The Malaise of Modernity (1/5) - Charles Taylor

Community is not very popular with some people who prefer individualism. Reaching 'one's potential' is a meaningless notion. 'Reaching some potential' might be more accurate but downbeat. We are potentially many people - opportunity, effort, luck, all play a role.

I see alot of people being unaware of the role of influence in their lives, "they" seem to live in a vaccum, not knowing that when they say "Jessica" they are citing Shakeaspeare, the one who discovered the name for the first time. This goes for everything we take for granted. We can't live in a vaccum, believing we invented this language, these philosophical problems, etc. I don't think it goes against individualism, because individualism can only survive in a very specific democratic eco-chamber, that's why we need to preserve it and community is fundamental.

I think they are. For example: someone, one day, thought about the creation of a nuke bomb. Then, this dream/idea put it on reality. This is could be one of the worst things created by humans. They are genius for creating such complex arm but evil too. I don’t want to underrate them as scientists because somehoe we have to understand the context but I rather see a poet or an artist showing their nightmares than a scientific put in practice the reason. — javi2541997

But then we have medicine. It looks like the case is sure to give any judge worth faer salt a pounding headache. I have a suspicion that we've derailed the thread.

It's a quite interesting podcast, he talks from politics to religion. "In 2007, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett filmed a landmark discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral." They were named the Four Horsemen.If your going to watch an episode, please watch this one: Sam Harris 2018 - Why Buddhism is True with Robert Wright

PS: I'm not a budhist btw.

Hope you find it interesting :)

That's a good differentiation, didn't think in those clear terms, even though it seems self-evident. Started reading Peirce and started to laugh: "But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a realand living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle." Pierced through my philosophical pose of someone who really questions, oh shit, I have some self-reflection to make... :lol: Thank you.

discussion about modern atheism. The video went viral." They were named the Four Horsemen.If your going to watch an episode, please watch this one: Sam Harris 2018 - Why Buddhism is True with Robert Wright

PS: I'm not a budhist btw — WaterLungs

It looks like interesting sure. But I am atheist :rofl: so I guess it will be a hard pill to swallow when he literally face atheism form a Buddhist point of view.

That said, you probably thought of survivorship bias because of the direction our conversation took with my comment on "exceptions" and "generalizations".

As a connection that was related to the topic but doesn't imply causality, I think your right.

There can be no doubt on that front. "Chess players" depend on logic, thinking inside a box, not crossing boundaries that logic sets up - that's where their daily bread comes from. "Poets" are more about unrestricted creativty, thinking outside the box. crossing boundaries wherever they happen to encounter one.

Both "chess players" and "poets" are playing games of creativity, either in literature or chess. Think of the great masters of creativity, they are those who reinvented the wheel without breaking the rules of the game, by making us aware of rules we didn't know existed. Shakespeare discovery of the modern man through Hamlet's soliloquies or Casanova's groundbreaking chess tactics. Both played by the rules of language or mathematics, and tried to express their creativity within that game. They both played creative games by following the same principles of disruption: reinvent the wheel without breaking the rules - this sounds a lot like Wittgenstein. Robert Mckee expresses this idea very well:

“Anxious, inexperienced writers obey rules. Rebellious, unschooled writers break rules. Artists master the form.”

It is one who tries to make reason the master and eliminate passion, that ends up in trouble.

Not reason itself, but the supression of emotions/passions in search of pure objectivity. Maybe this is the key to madness, when you try to live your day to day life through the lens of Bacon's "sub speciae aeternitatis": it will lead you to an illusion of objectivity, when you pretend to live life only from a third person rational and detached perspective? Maybe this is the source of the madness?

doubt is a clever game. — T H E

Indeed it is, one I’m playing right now, in attempting to reconcile the appearance of a contradiction in an otherwise respectable philosopher. From your link:

“....To satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency -- by something upon which our thinking has no effect. (.....) Such is the method of science. (.....) We can ascertain by reasoning how things really and truly are; and any man, if he have sufficient experience and he reason enough about it, will be led to the one True conclusion....”

What a belief may be about, may be nothing human, but the determining of the belief, which relates its subjective form to its objective content, must be entirely human, a priori. Therefore, “...a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by (...) some external permanency....”, is self-contradictory. It is possible to satisfy doubt (knowledge), and it is possible the method of science is the proper methodology for it (experiment), and external permanency is possible (the “Real”), but that “by which our beliefs are determined”, is certainly not “nothing human”.

Bottom line....young Charles tried so hard to rebut Kant, as this early 1877 article shows, but mature Charles discovered it couldn’t be done, as the later 1905 articles show. So he compromised, yet maintained his independence, as all good philosophers are wont to do, by labeling Kant “a somewhat confused pragmatist”. Which would be just short of hilarious, damned with faint praise nonetheless, if Charles weren’t such an intellect in his own right.

Rhetorically speaking......

And this is no off-hand remark of Chesterton's, but the direction of much of his writing. — unenlightened

Which would make it an off-hand conclusion on his part, absent any thoughtful consideration and evidence. He was an unabashed apologist.

Note his statement that "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason." He delighted in this kind of rhetorical device, and used it frequently. And, it may be expected that as an apologist for Christianity, (Pope Pius XI, Pontifex Maximus, made him a Knight of the Order St. Gregory), Chesterton would take such a position--reason simply could not be tolerated if it somehow conflicted with doctrine. He wrote in defense of belief in miracles, as well. He have been a good lawyer, poor fellow, and represented his client and its doctrine very ably.

Not reason itself, but the supression of emotions/passions in search of pure objectivity. — WaterLungs

:100:

(To quote like above, simply select some text from a post, and click the quote button that pops up.)

Which would make it an off-hand conclusion on his part, absent any thoughtful consideration and evidence. He was an unabashed apologist. — Ciceronianus the White

Yet he agrees with Hume, a philosopher so unapologetic he is still seemingly ahead of the times.

Yet he agrees with Hume, a philosopher so unapologetic he is still seemingly ahead of the times. — unenlightened

Yes, when it suited his purpose. I doubt he would have agreed with this statement by Hume, though:

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Hume sounds like one of Chesterton's madmen, here.

I doubt he would have agreed with this statement by Hume, though: — Ciceronianus the White

It doesn't suit my purpose to agree with that either. Or with you, a lot of the time. So it goes, as Mr Vonnegut used to say.

But in particular, the argument from character is a very weak one. The guy was fat, ignore everything he says.

You put your finger right on a nice issue. I think it would have been better if Peirce had said nothing individual (or individually human). The goal is something true for us and not just me, so perhaps it's more accurate to talk of checking with others and not with some paradoxical non-human stuff.

What I especially like is the portrait of doubt as a paralyzing, unpleasant state.

But it will only do so by creating a doubt in the place of that belief. With the doubt, therefore, the struggle begins, and with the cessation of doubt it ends...

Some philosophers have imagined that to start an inquiry it was only necessary to utter a question whether orally or by setting it down upon paper, and have even recommended us to begin our studies with questioning everything! But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle.

It is a very common idea that a demonstration must rest on some ultimate and absolutely indubitable propositions. These, according to one school, are first principles of a general nature; according to another, are first sensations. But, in point of fact, an inquiry, to have that completely satisfactory result called demonstration, has only to start with propositions perfectly free from all actual doubt. If the premisses are not in fact doubted at all, they cannot be more satisfactory than they are. — C S P

This explains why a certain style of philosophy (popular on forums) leaves more practically minded people cold. They have no living or actual doubt about (for instance) the 'external world' or the 'wrongness' of various crimes. This is not to say that a whole, complacent culture can't be proven wrong or forced to change their beliefs at some point.

"But the mere putting of a proposition into the interrogative form does not stimulate the mind to any struggle after belief. There must be a real and living doubt, and without this all discussion is idle." Pierced through my philosophical pose of someone who really questions, oh shit, I have some self-reflection to make... :lol: Thank you. — WaterLungs

That was my favorite quote perhaps! I'm glad you gave it a look and found the same focal point.

This quote also reminds me of the idea that philosophers solve public problems as a byproduct of solving personal problems. If I am genuinely troubled by an issue, I can't help but dwell on it, think about it, try to resolve it. When I do (if I do), then the solution will often work for others who are sufficiently similar to me. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Another quote from C S P and the same essay seems to fit here (the new link includes a longer version.)
http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/peirce-charles-fixation-belief.html

We are, doubtless, in the main logical animals, but we are not perfectly so. Most of us, for example, are naturally more sanguine and hopeful than logic would justify. We seem to be so constituted that in the absence of any facts to go upon we are happy and self-satisfied; so that the effect of experience is continually to contract our hopes and aspirations. Yet a lifetime of the application of this corrective does not usually eradicate our sanguine disposition. Where hope is unchecked by any experience, it is likely that our optimism is extravagant. Logicality in regard to practical matters is the most useful quality an animal can possess, and might, therefore, result from the action of natural selection; but outside of these it is probably of more advantage to the animal to have his mind filled with pleasing and encouraging visions, independently of their truth; and thus, upon unpractical subjects, natural selection might occasion a fallacious tendency of thought. — C S P

Perhaps this quote explains why so much philosophy and religion is irrational. The farther we are from practical matter, the farther we are from any checks on the madness that is always with us. In defense of this madness (following C S P), we credit imagination as crucial for science. Is reason just madness tamed rather than extinguished?

This explains why a certain style of philosophy (popular on forums) leaves more practically minded people cold. — T H E

Agreed, in principle. Not just here, but practically-minded folks in general, usually consider the objects of their inquiries to be given, re: Peirce’s “first sensations”, hence propositions with respect to such inquiries are considered “perfectly free from all actual doubt”.

On the other hand, that which leaves the practically-minded cold, so to speak, becomes moot for them, from sheer disregard. When presented with these conditions, with respect to Peirce’s “first principles”......

“....Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind. It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion....”

.....leaves them to simply not bother inquiring into those kinds of questions predicated on some doubt or other. So, no, this is not reason as madness tamed, but reason as madness denied**, madness herein indicating irreconcilable doubt. With this view, of course, your “doubt as a paralyzing, unpleasant state”, doesn’t exist in the practically-minded domain, but instead manifest as mere complacency, but runs amok, that is to say, “....has fallen into confusion, obscurity, and disuse from ill directed effort....” in the theoretically-minded domain, called pure metaphysics.

** not so much extinguished, as you say, for I think to extinguish presupposes the reality of madness extant beforehand, whereas to deny merely presupposes the possibility.

Anyway.....fun, this philosophy stuff, where good/bad is the proper standard, over right/wrong.

But in particular, the argument from character is a very weak one. The guy was fat, ignore everything he says. — unenlightened

You mention his girth. I haven't. But you're right, of course--it was impressive, like that of his hero, Thomas Aquinas. George Bernard Shaw used to mention it as well, with some frequency. So I suppose that you're in good company.

I, on the other hand, have only addressed his tendencies in argument and in coming to conclusions. And I've even said he would have made a good lawyer. What higher compliment could I pay him, or anyone?

Sam Harris is an atheist too. The title seems very biased towards defending buddhism, but it just tries to show what claims in buddhist religion have been validated by science. Not the metaphysical stuff, but the "simple things" like how meditation can rewire your brain etc.

but it just tries to show what claims in buddhist religion have been validated by science. — WaterLungs

Interesting topic! You give me even more reasons to check him out then :up:

When I deal with an "impossible problem" like the Problem of Free Will, my natural reaction is, maybe due to my neuroticism (natural tendency to avoid negative emotions), to try to resolve the emotional tension as quickly as possible. Many times I adopt a pragmatic position, to avoid feeling the physical sensation of being truly in doubt, to avoid the anxiety and stress that comes with real questioning, because the answer could lead me to question my foundational beliefs about who I am and how I should live my life. When I read some scientific article that disproves Free Will like, for example, "Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain" by Chun Siong Soon, I choose to adopt a pragmatic point-of-view and tell myself "Oh, who cares if free will doesn't exist? I'll still act as someone who believes to be free, I have no choice. Why bother thinking more deeply about the consequences of the non-existence of free will?" - then I go about my day, ignorantly happy and satisfied with my answer, having consciously chosen to ignore the emotional tension caused by a contradiction or complexity. I need to exercise the muscle that allows me to be more comfortable around ambiguity and complexity, and avoid trying to resolve an emotional tension, just to feel good about myself and the life I live. Thanks for the article :)

For whatever reason, the free will issue has never bothered me.I guess I'm a soft determinist. I think we can't help but enact our training. At the same time, I think we are too complex to predict in detail.

What I like most about pragmatism is the way it points out the smoke in what people say as they wander away from practical matters. For instance, wtf is free will, really? What do people mean? As far as I can make out, it involves something unpredictable in principle. This is like a ideal fair coin except that it can take responsibility, perhaps eternal responsibility, for its actions. Away from the religious baggage, I think it would just be easier to fallibly discuss difficult cases of assigning praise and blame.

I see alot of people being unaware of the role of influence in their lives, "they" seem to live in a vaccum, not knowing that when they say "Jessica" they are citing Shakeaspeare, the one who discovered the name for the first time. This goes for everything we take for granted. We can't live in a vaccum, believing we invented this language, these philosophical problems, etc. I don't think it goes against individualism, because individualism can only survive in a very specific democratic eco-chamber, that's why we need to preserve it and community is fundamental. — WaterLungs

:up:

For whatever reason, the free will issue has never bothered me.I guess I'm a soft determinist. I think we can't help but enact our training. At the same time, I think we are too complex to predict in detail. — T H E

Maybe it depends on mood swings, sometimes one is more prone to pessimism and nihilism but if it's a sunny day I don't pay much attention to it - instead I would be focused on the noontide demon of boredom that haunts my perfectly uninteresting life. Always be aware of the danger of a perfect sunny day. :lol:

take responsibility, perhaps eternal responsibility, for its actions. Away from the religious baggage, I think it would just be easier to fallibly discuss difficult cases of assigning praise and blame. — T H E

There's an interesting article on the subject of Moral Luck:Moral Luck (Stanford Encyclopedia)