Stoicism and most systems do promise to be therapeutic. I'm not sure I see that in existentialism. Existentialism seems to be more about giving up on systems, and just finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system. — anonymous66

I just realized I've been completely oblivious to the existence of Existentialist Psychology and Psychotherapy, so the answer is, "of course some people think that existentialism is therapeutic."

God is not a God, not a Zeus or Indra or Baal. It was depicted in those terms because that was how people thought in those times, but the reality was never that. I don't believe in a God but I'm not atheist. I get that this seems nonsensical. Anyway I really am signing out for a while - sionara. — Wayfarer

That does make sense to me. If God IS, then He would be practically inconceivable. And I've also said, "I don't believe in a God, but I'm not an atheist"

↪anonymous66 Here is the Amazon list of the spiritual books that influenced me during my formative years. Most of those I read in the 1970's and 80's. — Wayfarer

Thanks for that. I'll take a look.

There is something called spiritual realisation or self-realisation. You don't encounter those terms very much any more, but they were found in some of the books in that list (such as Autobiography of a Yogi, a copy of which was given to every guest at Steve Jobs funeral.) It is very different understanding to that of mainstream Christianity, although it's not necessarily antagonistic to it; also very hard to convey. But the gist of it is, that the sage penetrates maya or the illusion that characterises the human condition, and realises that actually only God is real, and that God is not a sky-father or a remote mythological deity. Then, of course, the Buddhist texts don't speak in terms of God at all; but they do a lot of what most of us take for granted as real.

I don't know if any of that will mean anything to you or not, but that is where my path lead, and the path I'm still following. I think I'm taking a spell from posting for a while, to read and reflect some more. Be well. — Wayfarer

The studying I've done suggests that wise people throughout the ages have seen stories about God as just that, stories. They believed in a God (or many gods), and believed that the stories were important and had a point, but they didn't think of them as literal in any way.

It's interesting to see how the stories have developed. The Greeks saw the gods as just as flawed as humans. The Romans, through Vergil, cleaned up the stories, to agree with their views of morality. It seems that gradually we (we humans, or at least some of us?)came to believe that God is perfect... or perhaps that He is so other that He cannot be understood.

Either there is something that might be described as God, and we are gradually discovering Him... or we are creating our version of a perfect God. I'm not sure which.

To which a Christian would answer "what has been revealed in the Bible"! That is what "revelation" means. Now I don't want to come off as preaching, as I don't self-identify as Christian, but through the path I've been following, — Wayfarer

My question still stands. What, if anything, can we say we know about God? — anonymous66

My most moving experiences of Christian mercy were at a Catholic teaching hospital. I worked there as a wardsman in my teens, and witnessed how the nursing sisters would minister to the patients in acute distress; I perceived a real spiritual power in their ability to do that. Later a dear relative had major surgery in that same hospital, and I saw the same again. 'Mater Misercordea' - 'mother of mercy' - I began to see it wasn't simply a figurative expression. — Wayfarer

@Wayfarer. I've met some really cool people as well, people who showed mercy and compassion, some of whom were believers, others definitely not. What is your point?

As an aside. Ever read anything by Frederick Buechner? I've read Godric, On the Road with the Archangel, Telling the Truth, The Bebb tetralogy, and I just ordered Speak What You Feel (not what you ought to say).

To which a Christian would answer "what has been revealed in the Bible"! That is what "revelation" means. Now I don't want to come off as preaching, as I don't self-identify as Christian, but through the path I've been following, I think I've developed an understanding of it. The point for Christians is that they have a relationship - actually, one of their sayings is, 'it's not a religion it's a relationship'. The divine manifest for them in the form of Jesus. — Wayfarer

I assumed that Christians believe that theirs is a revealed religion and that they believe the Bible is that revelation. My question still stands. What, if anything, can we say we know about God? I don't believe there is a simple answer to that question. After 40 years of experience with the religion, Christianity makes more sense if I assume it's men trying to explain God, than if I assume a God is directly communicating with us.


.

Seems to me that giving up on systems and finding ways to enjoy life w/o a system might be highly therapeutic for some people.

My operating system is Christian, whether I like it or not, however much I might wish otherwise. I've pared down that PX OS, tried overriding it with new OSs, and all that, but it won't budge. Is the systemic part good or bad? — Bitter Crank

What do you mean here by PX OS? OS is operating system, correct? But PX?

Some system is helpful; it provides pathways, symbols, models, useful tools, goals, etc. Can any system get out of hand? Systems tend to get out of hand, which is why we must pay attention: nip metastatic systems in the bud. Systems want to subvert our energy into following the rules and regs of the system, rather than living a full life.

I like what you wrote here. Systems can be helpful, but they can also make us miss the point of life.

Hi Anon - I have been following your progress with interest. Re 'atheist Christian' - I think your issue might be with the image or idea of God. — Wayfarer

Thank you for those thoughts and links. I'm okay with almost any conception of God, even in regards to Christianity. If God, it doesn't really make sense to criticize Him. It seems to me that Christianity is basically just assuming that there is a God, and that He is perfectly Good, it's just that we humans aren't capable of understanding a perfect God. But, I do wonder, if God, then what, if anything, can we say we actually know about Him? I see various opinions, and speculation, but nothing concrete, and it seems to me that instead of God reaching out to us in any way, we humans are just speculating and making assumptions about God. I like Don Cuppit's non-realisim. It seems to fit the evidence. The Stoic version of God looks pretty good, as well. They said they got their view of God by observing nature- not from any revelation. But, I struggle with the idea that this is the best possible world. I've done my own "mod" to Stocisim, to make it "better". In my modification, the universe is destroyed and recreated in an eternal recurrence, but instead of being exactly the same, each recurrence is just a little better than the one before it.

I've read De Botton, and I like him. I've heard of Karen Armstrong, and she looks intriguing.

The point is that although Wittgenstein managed to write a substantial treatise without much formal training (though he did have some), his own philosophical outlook vastly improved after he found himself in a more academic setting, in no small part because he was in constant contact with a lot of other brilliant philosophers. So we don't know if lack of formal training was an asset or a hindrance, though we do know that in some cases (mathematics) it was actually a hindrance. — Nagase

That is a good point.

Plato, Socrates, many other ancient philosophers, and Wittgenstein..none of them received any formal training. — anonymous66

That's not quite true. Socrates apparently read other philosophers such as Anaxagoras, Gorgias, Parmenides, etc., and Plato, aside from reading those, was also schooled by Socrates himself! That's some pretty good training. Plato himself considered it so good that he went to require that every philosopher should go through it (this can be seen, theoretically, in his discussions of education in, e.g., The Republic, and in practice in the fact that he established a formal school for such training, namely the Academy). As for Wittgenstein, he apparently was tutored by Russell and Frege. — Nagase

Perhaps it's nitpicking, but would you call any of that "formal"? How long was Wittgenstein tutored before he wrote his Tractatus, was awarded a Doctorate, and started teaching?

It seems to me that Wittgenstein was something of an arrogant ass, it just so happens he was also a genius and had some great insights.

Don Cuppitt makes it look pretty attractive.

podcast.

Book 1

Book 2

I'll be 50 this year, and I'm thinking about pursuing a philosophy degree. But, I sometimes wonder if I could accomplish the same thing by reading on my own, and submitting articles to peer reviewed journals. Plato, Socrates, many other ancient philosophers, and Wittgenstein..none of them received any formal training. Am I being arrogant by even thinking of comparing myself to them?

I'm almost afraid I'll lose my edge if I attempt a formal degree.

I suppose I do Sound like a relativist.. but I reject that label.

I like it.

It does seem odd that people are certain that we can't just choose whatever we like, but also can't suggest what we "should" choose. If we don't know how best to describe reality, then how could one be sure that we aren't justified in just choosing what makes sense to us?

It's like I'm being assured, "you can't just choose what you like"... but it's also acknowledged that no one knows of a system that "should" be followed.

I thought my caveats were pretty good ( so long as it makes sense, is useful, agrees with what we see in the world, etc?). Should I add to them?

It seems to me that we all do have beliefs. Perhaps it makes people uncomfortable to think of it as "choosing" our beliefs? I suppose it is more organic and subjective than sitting down and considering what to believe, at least for many people. Maybe I just had an unusual experience in that I rejected my Young Earth Creationist Christianity, and then went on a journey looking for something else. And then again, I'm conflicted because I'm not sure anyone actually chooses their beliefs. I do feel like I can choose what to explore... what direction to take.

I do applaud the ancient philosophers, especially Plato and Aristotle, in that the tried out various systems, and then changed their minds, and also considered alternatives.

Does that mean that there is a "correct" system? Is it obvious, or has it just yet to be found?

Even if there is something objective.. can't we still just make up whatever story we like, so long as it makes sense, is useful, agrees with what we see in the world, etc?

I'm torn between Stoicism and existentialism as of late. The Stoics have the most comprehensive, attractive system I've found. But, it seems to be based on the idea, "these are the conclusions we've drawn, based on what we see in nature." While Existentialism is more about being authentic and listening to oneself. And actually, that thought of listening to oneself is taught in Stoicism as well. So, perhaps I can be a Stoic existentialist... Why not? there were Christian Existentialists...

@ the OP... Ever looked into Absurdism? As I understand it, it acknowledges that we're living in a confusing universe, but it also asserts we can choose to enjoy it anyway.

Does it make sense to assign a (universal, not personal) "meaning" to "life"? Or has the question always been a category error? — hypericin

For me, life does have meaning. I don't spend much time wondering why, and I've never felt I was "assigning" anything, it just does have meaning. I do wonder if our universe would have meaning if there were no humans (or no intelligent life?) It's seems to me that humans are merely assigning meaning to what is becoming an increasingly bizarre universe (why should it make sense to us?) that is barely describable (string theory, multiverse, dark matter and dark energy).

I've been thinking about it... perhaps I'll rewrite my OP this way..

(title of thread:) HYPOTHESES

I'm assuming we all accept that there is an objective reality, and objective truths are reality.

However, I've had some conversations recently about Freud and Jung and even the Stoics and the Epicureans, and it's fascinating that they each look at the world in such different ways.

The ancient Stoics were convinced that the world was such that moral excellence (virtue) was a reward in and of itself, and necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia (human flourishing). They saw moral good as the only good and moral evil as the only evil.

Epicurus was convinced that pleasure was the only good and pain the only evil. He and his followers believed that Eudaimonia was a more or less continuous experience of pleasure, and also, freedom from pain and distress.

I don't know much about Freud and Jung except that they each had an idea of how the world worked, and they disagreed.

What do you think? Is it the case that we are each aware of how little we can be sure of, and about which we can say, "this is the Truth"? Are we each merely creating our own hypotheses and then conducting experiments with our lives, to see how closely our hypotheses align with what is the case? Are we each willing to acknowledge that it is only a hypothesis, and that we may need to change, as new information becomes available?

It seems to me you're searching for an intellectual certainty that cannot be had. For me, it's all about intellectual commitment. I commit myself to the notion of a truth beyond us (contra the sophists and the PoMo's) because I think the logic of our situation and our discourses themselves demands such a commitment. I do not commit myself on the basis that I think I have discovered any proof that there is a truth beyond human discourse, because such proof is not possible. — John

Are you denying that anyone anywhere has ever created a narrative? If not intellectual certainties, then aren't we left with narratives? Or would you rather use a "non POMO" word for what we create because we don't have intellectual certainty?

It seems to me that we both agree that there are objective truths, it's just that I don't have an issue with calling the contradictory explanations we create "narratives". How do you describe the vastly different ways people try to explain things like free will and morality, and living the best life, etc? What non-POMO associated word would you use?

Does anyone else see defenders of Christianity as just people defending their favorite narrative? It's like they're saying, "c'mon, it's a complete story that has worked for thousands of years. if we'd all just buy into it, then we'd all agree on everything, and we wouldn't have to worry about stuff." or maybe, "c'mon, Christianity works. We just cleaned up this epistemological mess, and now you guys are messing it all up again with your uncomfortable questions and observations"

scientism — anonymous66

Oh oh, they are all exhibiting POMO vocabulary and concerns. Call the cops. — Bitter Crank

Literally the first time I was exposed to the term "scientism", was when it was used by a Christian Creationist to disparage evolution. The gist was "You're sure about evolution? That's because you dismiss Christianity in favor of Scientism".

The very same sophistic point was made over 2000 years ago by Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things." — John

What sophistic point?

I want to go on record as saying that I don't believe that man is the measure of all things, and I see the dangers of Sophistry. I accept that there are objective truths.

I guess I'm just being honest and pointing out that even though I believe in objective truths, there is obviously much that we don't know... And because of that fact, man has been creating narratives for quite some time. Is it really all that controversial to point out that fact? I suppose if you want to leave the word "narrative" and postmodernism out of the equation, then it could be said that man has been telling himself different stories, and trying out different explanations for various topics for quite some time. What is the nature of knowledge? What is the nature of the universe we find ourselves in? What is the best way to live one's life? What is the best society? What is the best form of government? What is the nature of morality? I find myself in a world in which I can't give unassailable answers to those questions. If your experience is different in some way, do tell. If there are obvious truthful answers to these questions then, by all means, fill me in. I like security.

Narratives are a requirement. If not narratives, then not psychology, for example. What I mean is that each school of thought and form of therapy is vastly different. If not narratives, then why not just one school of thought, and one form of therapy?

I'd like to hear alternatives for narratives, if there are any. If there are truths that should be told instead of narratives, then I'd like to hear them. I'm all for truth.

A trivial point made and realized by those who aren't postmodernists. Notice also that you were able to make it without tortuous vocabulary. That's my only comment, as the rest of your post appears sensible to me. — Thorongil

I'm not so sure this point would be so trivial if not for postmodernism.

Postmodernists make me want to gargle battery acid whilst burning alive in a chemical fire. I'm glad you're skeptical of them. — Thorongil

Postmodernists have helped us as a society to be honest about the fact that even in science, certain ways of looking at the world (our lenses, if you will) can and do cloud judgment and perception. But instead of seeing that as evidence that the concept of truth is incoherent, I see it as a reminder to consider my own biases, and the biases of others, no matter how objective they sound.

I'm leaning towards instrumentalism in science as well. Science is more about finding ways to make better and better predictions, than it is a search for ultimate truths.

Postmodernists have also warned us of the dangers of scientism. Just because we can do something with science (like make big bombs and biological weapons), it doesn't mean we should.

I don't like the inherent denial of truth and commitment to subjectivism, nor their peculiar language, but I do appreciate the warnings.

And I do think it's interesting that a lot of important, influential figures and movements (Freud, Jung, Stoicism, Epicureanism, Aristostle, Plato, Socrates) could be described as creating narratives that some people buy into. And I wonder if what "sticks" couldn't be described as being "useful" in some ways, at least for a time... until they get replaced with some other "more useful" narrative.

'Post-modernism' is not a school of thought, but a period of history. — Wayfarer

It seems to me that it could be described as a period of history, but it is also a movement and school of thought. They even have their own journals.

Just because one lives during a certain time period, it doesn't follow that they buy into postmodernistic ways of thinking.

Postmodernists speak of the "lenses" through which we see the world. Maybe they were on to something.

I doubt that each narrative is just as good as another. One must still guard against harming oneself. And it would be downright silly to believe something that one knows to be false, wouldn't it?

The Stoics did believe their own philosophy was true in a real way, as did the other schools. They disagreed and argued with one another all the time where contradictions between them arose, or on definitions and details, but they also realised that Stoicism was not for everyone and that if an individual found Epicurean doctrines to be more valuable or obvious then they welcomed defection to the other side. — WhiskeyWhiskers

I haven't come across any evidence that the Stoics, or any of the ancient schools actually welcomed defection (in fact defection was very rare and notable) but Seneca often quotes Epicurus and treats him and his teachings with nothing but respect.

I guess I'd have to say, that IF we are in a deterministic universe, then technically any free will we think we have would probably look like programming, to an outside observer. BUT, even if we are in a deterministic universe, THEN we still have to consider the consequences of our actions, SO we do have free will. It's virtually impossible for me to convince myself that I don't have free will.
That being said, I do consider my background and previous conditions when I think about my and other people's behaviors.

I think that's where Searle is coming from, as well. I think he concedes that IF a deterministic universe, then not really technically free will. But, when we go into a restaurant, it's still up to us to order a meal. The universe isn't going to do it for us. That's free will - and it's a free will that is independent of the type of universe we're in.

So, are we just supposed to have faith that we are in a deterministic universe? Or hope we're not in one? Be agnostic about it?

Can one claim to know that one does have free will, and not also make a claim about the type of universe we're in? The two topics look to be inseparable.

Many years ago I met someone who genuinely believed in a deterministic universe and that everything was fate and we had no free will.

He used it as an excuse for his actions. — bassplayer

You sound like Dennett. I'm not aware of Harris or any of his followers blaming the universe for their own inappropriate behavior, are you?

There are times I wonder if we are in a position to know if we have free will. If we're wrong about this being a deterministic universe, then it's possible we do have free will, by anyone's definition.

I've been going back over Sam Harris' book Free Will, and I think the main point of his entire way of looking at free will may just be to get people to accept that a lot of what they believe about the world around them, was determined by things beyond their control. I think his point is that if we believe we and other humans have free will, then there are certain expectations that go along with that belief, and we tend to hold ourselves and others accountable. If we truly believed no one has free will, then those expectations would be very different.

I bought into Dennett's fear-mongering for a while. But, then I met some people who, because of Harris, were totally convinced that they have no free will. They and Harris are living good lives, as far as I can tell. They're not out there committing crimes and blaming those crimes on the universe.

Like my other thread suggests... I think any position on free will would have to be one of blind faith.

Regardless of free will or not, we still consider the consequences of our actions... (at least if we're sane).

If he was, he didn't make that clear. But that reminds me of the debate I had with another fellow who is convinced that both Dennett and Harris actually accept that free will is the case. I believe the main gist of that particular fellow's argument is that Harris just denies libertarian free will.

Harris actually makes it very clear that he believes free will is incompatible with determinism. Harris believes we are living in a strictly deterministic universe, and he clearly denies that we have free will (although he does suggest that all people need to act as if they have free will).

Care definitely should be taken when denying free will. I'm imagining someone who never had the courage to stand up for himself, and as an adult never moves out of his parent's house. He hears "we don't have free will", and thinks to himself, "oh, yeah, that explains it... where are those Cheetos?"

Also, I'm an incompatibilist, for example (and an incompatibilist who believes that there is free will). I can never make any sense of compatibilism unless someone is redefining the terms so that we're not even talking about the same thing any longer. — Terrapin Station

I had an interesting conversation the other day with someone who claimed to be a compatibilist, but after a rather uncomfortable exchange, he denied that we have free will. It was really strange. After my conversation with him, I feel I need to ask all compatiblists, "are you a compatibilist who accepts free will, or do you deny that we have free will?"

Perhaps it's slightly more complicated... but doesn't this essentially come down to whether or not we are actually responsible for our actions, OR that we are merely living out lives that were predetermined from the beginning of the universe? Are we merely observers watching what happens, while given the illusion that we are in control? Or are we actually responsible, and in reality, in control?

I think it's more likely that we are in control and responsible. And it seems to me that to deny that likelihood is to say "self-control and planning are pointless- I really have no control, no matter what I do it's just going to be what I was predetermined to do anyway."

Please provide the laws of physics that are non-determinisic. — tom

Are you familiar with Quantum indeterminacy?

Sure, but in practical terms, he was an atheist. His behaviour did not hinge on the belief in gods, as gods have nothing to do with men. Whereas for Sam Harris, his behaviour does hinge on the non-existence of gods. — Agustino

I find Sam Harris' ideas about morality and free will to be odd and poorly supported. New Atheism (of which he is a part) has a political agenda with which I disagree.

Epicurus honestly disbelieves in God, — Agustino

Epicurus did believe in the gods. He even had an argument to defend his belief. He just also believed that they had nothing to do with us, and that rather we are completely on our own.

As for sin - sin is the ultimately politically-incorrect word nowadays. Culture thinks it is liberated because it has ditched the idea. — Wayfarer

I've noticed that as well. One of the reasons I backed away from Atheist groups and got more interested in Philosophy, is because I broached the subject of sin in an atheist group and was met with hostile disapproval. I tried to get them to see sin as something other than disapproval from a Christian God, but that's the only way they could conceive of the concept.

When I think of sin, I think of it as acknowledging that I want to be virtuous, and acknowledging that I sometimes fail. I think of those failures as something I want to correct. The atheists I know appear to be of the opinion that morality is something bad that religions thought up, and that a better world is one in which people don't think of morality, except in terms of claiming that nothing is, our should be thought of as being immoral.

Even before I became acquainted with Stoicism, and after I rejected Christianity, I thought of sin as being a mistake that I wanted to correct, not something "bad" that I had done that needed or deserved to be punished.

There is no good reason to be unsure of whether this web page exists as one's eyes are interacting with it. — jkop

Sure. I don't deny that.

Reading, talking to people. We all appear to be experiencing the same reality.

This is fallibilism as I understand it:

Fallibilism (from Medieval Latin: fallibilis, "liable to err") is the philosophical principle that human beings could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of the world.

Can someone prove that that prinicple is false?