A rejection of existence requires the application of or validation of the same faculty upon which or within which.this God entity is manifest.

If we dehumanize god as Spinoza has done, and as reason would beg us to do, it follows then that a dehumanised god can never be negated by the application of the faculty 'thought' as thought becomes or remains as the fundamental basis of dehumanised god.

nd that is the "false faith in your post I was referring to - Is your stated purpose " to find truth" really a "false faith" if the absurdist is correct and we lack the tools to find any meaningful truth. — Rank Amateur

It may be ultimately a false faith. However within the context of my existence as a functional expression of thought, I am driven by a deep desire to reconcile that thought via my processing of it. I think that through me 'thought' seeks to reconcile itself with itself.

Me: the 'I' thing, might well be the sole example within the entire universe where this thing called 'thought' has 'the' or 'an' opportunity to consider itself before it dies (if indeed it is destined to die).

Without question 'thought' is the most amazing 'thing' within the Universe. I am part of it and the Universe may well be part of it, and strangely I appear to have some control over it, as it manifests itself through me. This is truly the miracle of me.

The falsity or truth of my wanting to find truth is of no real concern to me. What is of concern is the truth or falsity of my thought. If I can manage to reconcile my thought, to bring it into harmony with itself then I feel I have completed my 'purpose' I will have given my life meaning beyond the material within the eternity of existential thought.

M

I understand that; but, I don't agree with the Hume'ian sentiment being professed here, if that is the case of reason being the handmaiden to the emotions. — Posty McPostface

This is interesting. There are two views from separate perspectives.

1) On an individual level human beings are motivated more by emotion than by reason.

2) Upon a logical level 'ideas' the truth of things and non-things cannot be pursued via emotions or in the service of the emotions/instincts. What allows a philosophy to endure is the fact that it might survive when its emotive content has faded.

The contemporary paradigm is formed out of collective emotion that is validated by some degree of reason. The Nazis had their phrenologists and anthropologists to give 'reasons' why certain humans were inferior to certain others. These reasoned-reasons were used to satisfy a particular emotive paradigm.

Determinism is equally assailed by reasoned-reasons and these are appealing and become the paradigm because they satisfy emotional attachment to things like "I" and 'free-will'. This is as I have said previously the 'Century of the self'.

Yet, progress is possible and has been made. We're at the most peaceful time in human history... Think about that. — Posty McPostface

Again we are at odds as a matter of opinion. If one considers the realities of global ecology and wealth distribution, one might equally argue that never before in the history of our race have humans been more destructive of one another and the ecology that sustains us than we are today. If one simply considers the potential kindness, justice and ecological harmony that might be effected via existing material wealth, and technology: we have never had the power to do more good, and yet we choose to do more harm. just look at how the demon that is 'The Market' grows towards its inevitable self consumption.


It is impossible not to despair, unless one removes ones gaze from ones fellow, and looks; to enduring thought, to the stars, to the sea, or to the smiling faces of children, and creatures not human. Fortunately life is terminal of its own accord, and therefore need not be dispensed with in a hurry.

M

Rank A

That is a lovely phrase "condemned to freedom".

Is it a false faith that we have the ability or tools to arrive at any truth of real value ? — Rank Amateur

.

No I don't see how this can be the case. To deduce that if determinism is true and we are unfree, does not fully imply that thought is not free in other ways. The relation between thought and the execution of the material function that is our life, is not as fixed and rigid as determined doomsayers like to insist.

I may cut the lawn and think upon Socrates at the same time.

Whilst all the atoms in the Universe were compelled to cut my lawn, from the very dawn of time, my thought or meta-thought (thought of something whilst effectively doing/thinking something else) cannot be as easily aligned with the materially determined nature of my cutting the lawn.

To have regret is to impose a moral judgement upon ones determined behavior yet having regret does not necessarily mean that the material (determined) behavior will or can be avoided in the 'future'. We may not have the freedom to avoid behaving stupidly, but we may have the freedom to become wise.

Indeed wise people behave very stupidly at times.

M

Because Freudian 'todestrieb' is ridiculous and is the point at which Psychoanalysis begins to fail. There is no death-drive. Human beings do not subconsciously wish to die.

Freud created death drive to reconcile instinctual imperatives that he failed to prioritize correctly. He borrowed this concept from a contemporaneous research paper published in 1912. It (death drive) is one of the few examples where the father of modern or practical thought-analysis, was wrong.

It is easily dispensed with by deductive reasoning alone without even resorting to the empirical.What is important instead, is the priority of instinctual imperative, and if this is understood correctly the need for todestrieb is then negated.

M

I don't know. If you want to appeal to emotions arising from emotions themselves, then you're going to get stuck in a loop. — Posty McPostface

I have made no appeal to emotions? merely stated that they may be an aspect of that which is truly free.

On the whole of it, people are generally good. It's the strange philosophers that paint with a very broad brush that are to be suspect. — Posty McPostface

We must disagree here, BUT it is only on a point of opinion as to the 'most'. I believe that lots of people are good some 20% and most people are bad 80%. The badness is mitigated by the fact that it arises out of an ignorance of self. I suspect that most Germans were good people in the 1940's and it is only history that differs. I imagine that the future will look back upon our treatment of global ecology and will probably assert with equal conviction that most of us were/are bad.

Yes, Socrates died from the hands of the 'herd'. What about it? — Posty McPostface

Again this is a matter of opinion. I believe that truth has always been antagonistic to the herd and it will always be murdered. When it is murdered one can be confident that it was truth, until then it may just be more of the same.

How are you so sure of all this? — Posty McPostface

Because Kant has iterated the methodology, Descartes has iterated what the subject actually is, Schopenhauer has pointed to the usual fallacy (that MUST be avoided), and Freud has outlined the basic mechanics.

M

I accept what you have written. What is the point you are making?

Apologies sometimes I'm a bit slow on meanings.

M

Whoa. You can't be serious. This reduces the importance of agency in our lives and assumes some fatalistic psychological stance, much like the one Freud and other psychologists covered, which leads to an overwhelming sense of futility and pessimism in one's life. — Posty McPostface

Should we avoid the elucidation or comprehension of a potentially all encompassing 'fatalistic' reality out of a fear of this potentially 'overwhelming futility and pessimism'? This futility is already at the heart of most sensible philosophers who look at the world with a mind that is relatively independent of social/herd programming. The pessimism and futility are entirely mitigated by ones potential liberation from the herd, an experience of the vast infinite beauty contained equally within the mind, and the material/natural Universe. This infinite source of happiness merely requires freedom from the herd, if it is to be enjoyed.

Personally I have no belief in 'agency'. The Universe is clearly determined and much of contemporary philosophy is concerned with the maintenance of a contrary and empty delusion, for reasons that you allude to. However, in spite of the determined nature of the Universe, I feel there is scope for freedom, within the confines of thought. Emotional freedom, meta-thought (thought upon thought), these and more may be the true realms of potential individual 'freedom' and the only opportunity for 'Agency', and this realization can be as liberating as it might appear to be pessimistic.

Nietzsche professed a philosophy that entices and encourages the rise of delusions, with his appeal to psychological needs as the only motivating force in a man's life. — Posty McPostface

I agree entirely here and I think that what Nietzsche was calling for in respect of a 'Philosophy of the Future', is a philosophy that is based upon an absolute understanding of what mans psychological needs actually are.

These 'I' maintain are all derivatives from the instinctual imperative towards belonging. Belonging does not arise out of Nietzsche's 'will to power' rather the will to power is a derivative of the need to belong. How much different the world might be if the Nazi's have been moved by the inclusive dictates of belonging rather than the derivative 'will to power or supremacy'

This 'fact' has yet to be successfully established, because Philosophers are busied (for the most part) with self-preservational delusions vis the disproving of induction, or the disproving of determinism etc. The desperate and pathetic attempts to cling to the "I".



M

I don't think Nietzsche was anti-God, he was anti-human, or more correctly anti-(most) humans. The beauty of Nietzsche lies in his relevance to those whom he considered non-fools, the uberman and the Philosopher of the future (not the past or the present).

The 'philosophers of the future', these enigmatic souls are out there but they remain confined to the minority.

Nihilism is a self contradiction. Thought cannot be annihilated, even by thought itself.

One cannot reject God and continue to exist oneself, this is impossible. A rejection of God entails a rejection of existence. One strives at all times to understand what this God is? And avoid the various fashionable opinions and the 'books for all the world' as a source of this knowledge. As Nietzsche writes "the stench of small people clings to them"

M

Posty

There is no alternative because there is no 'material' interventionist supreme authority to arbitrate on the matter and incarcerate or silence the fools. There is only the God of truth and its handmaiden 'logic and reason', whom the God must accept are often presenting untruths and illogical suppositions.

Nietzsche reminds that we should have as much respect for un-truth as truth, and in this sense the fool is often correct. In this sense too, even the liars, the mud-slingers, the sycophants to intellectual self-serving fashions, and the fools; may indeed have something that is worth listening to. At the very least their anger (when they are exposed) is an exposition of worshiped fallacies.

I fear that if you change the current rules upon the battle field, you will cause something important to be lost. What is important to bear in mind is the fact that there is a logic and a truth and one must continue to 'fight' for it and against it in order to make it real. Personally I think this truth has more life and more of its source in the old questions rather than the 'new' fashionable answers.

M

Anyway, the important thing is that Popper solves Hume's "Problem of Induction" with his Scientific Method, and that knowledge of causes is indeed possible, and always fallible. — tom

Tom

From what I have read of Karl Popper thus far in respect of his "solving" Hume's Problem, I remain entirely unconvinced. Please might you reference the Popper article or paper where you feel he has best achieved this solution? So that we might have an agreed 'Popper- position'.

M

An acceptance of an assertion? — tom

One makes an assertion, and another accepts or rejects an assertion?

I don't wish to be pedantic, but are you in any way familiar with Popper? — tom

No Tom, I know nothing of him or her but will rectify same and revert.

And, yes, we actually do know what causes the sun to shine. — tom

I have only the vaguest notion of what unites the effect sun-'shine' with its cause, or if there is such a cause. I agree that there are events that precede the event 'shine' but I do not think anyone has proven which event if any is the cause.

I am happy that you have some personal or shared certainty here, and I presume you are not including 'me' in the 'we'.

And Tom.... sincere apologies if I have come across as being offensive or some such. I am not great with words.

Your thought and (hopefully not my own thought) on the matter is not the enemy.

I will respond when I have looked at Popper and thank you for the reference.

M

An acceptance of Humes assertion that effects are not necessarily or even reasonably 'caused' precludes a subsequent reliance upon the 'scientific method' as a methodology towards 'preference.' It merely encourages particular types of preferences and subsequent hypothesis.

You write:

"For example, we have a theory about what causes the radiation from the sun. This theory rests on a great deal of knowledge"

The basis for this knowledge is the scientific method, which if flawed (as it is) would mean that your use of the word knowledge might be revised to that of 'hypothesis'?

What would appear to be important therefore is to establish a model of dualism that avoids a reliance upon the scientific method and its various fashionable preferences.

This is not impossible, but it is avoided in preference for the SM of the Scientific Method.

Why must Philosophy bow to Science?

M

Tom

I don't wish to sound pedantic but have you read Hume, on the subject of cause and effect?

M

We have somewhat covered this.

I am here (my behavior) at the behest of my instinctual imperatives, the primary one being to 'belong'.

I seek to reconcile my thought with that of others, as this (in conjunction with the logic of its basis), is the only way "I" have of knowing that I am approaching truth. My personal definition of 'God' is 'truth' and the path to truth is Philosophy. It is covered in briars but is paved with the headstones of great thinkers.

In religious parlance I am here because I wish to belong to a God, whom I am trying to get to know, before my material existence expires.

I must endure the idiocy of my peers, but equally they must endure mine.

M

Wow, you've really changed. I thought you're earlier post was interesting, but now you appear to have totally lost it. Are you drunk, or do you have another explanation? — George Cobau

Not drunk, but its not a bad idea. You write:

First, a correlation between mind and brain has been established by the effects of brain injuries as well as by brain scanners. For example, when someone imagines playing tennis, this corresponds to certain activity in a particular part of the brain. Given this reality, it appears that either mind and brain must be identical or the brain causes conscious experience.

You are operating upon the basis of an assumption here, and this is the point where our philosophical positions begin to diverge. Vis your notion of cause and effect. This notion is in keeping with the current scientific paradigm (effects are caused) However philosophy has dispensed with this assumption a long time ago. It does indeed serve a purpose upon a practical level however it is one of the endearing assumptions that makes science possible and life easier to comprehend. Not surprisingly it is adhered to with great tenacity and indeed many new theories have been built upon it, such as your own particular variant of dualism 'new dualism'.

If we consider Hume's thesis on the relations between cause and effect as having some valid input into this matter, we must pause before assumptions like the relations between brain trauma and the 'effects' on thought process. It is merely the repeated basis of the result, that tenders the dubious association of 'effect': (thought/mind change) being the putative effect that is "caused" by physical trauma. There is no evidence to suggest that effects are caused, there is merely repetition, possible temporal relation in that one appears to precede the other, and nothing more. To build an entire philosophy upon this assumption is a noble pursuit but it negates Hume's crucial input, and I would only do that if I were indeed quite drunk. Science would not ignore Darwin and neither should Philosophy assume that Hume was a fool.

I am not so much interested in a philosophy that is constructed upon assumptions, but rather one that seeks to reconcile the facts. And in this instance you have begun with an enormous assumption and launched yourself into the stratosphere.

M

No absolutely not. If Philosophy does not hurt then it is not Philosophy. All of the greatest philosophers without exception have been murdered by Philosophy.

Philosophy is not a gift it is a curse.

Only ignorance is the blissful gift that keeps on giving.

M

And, what is that objective if you don't mind me asking? — Posty McPostface

That is easy. Like most difficult questions it has been under our noses all the time. The poets have being trying to tell the Philosopher for a thousand years.

"Love"

Or in terms of evolutionary biology, or human psychology. The primary instinctual imperative for the human animal. The drive which unquestionably precedes all other instinctual drives and indeed is the instinct from which all other instincts are derived, is the instinctual imperative towards belonging. The universal raison d'etre; the very fountainhead of all our misery and all our joy.

Belonging

M

Shouldn't Religion be 'left'?

Yes, left to history and to the indulgence of those who find thinking and Philosophy to be painful, and time consuming.

It (religion) is both interesting and relatively easy.

M

Agreed. But language is simply a vehicle for the instincts, a means to achieve a single supreme natural primordial objective. Nothing more nothing less. Understanding the objective obviates the need for making such a fuss about language itself.

M

They somehow emerged from the physical brain during the course of evolution. Consciousness itself is not so mysterious. What is mysterious is just how the brain creates it. — George Cobau

Why must the Brain create consciousness?
This is homocentric, neurocentric and egocentric. There is absolutely not one shred of evidence for this commonly held and entirely self serving belief. It is a rather weak attempt at preserving the notion of self against the realities of will and determinism. It is a delusion of modernity and yet is medieval in its origins. Why must Galileo continually be compelled to recant; the Universe is outside our heads not inside!

Let it go, let it go... can't hold it back anymore! (Queen Elsa:Frozen)

The Brain (it appears to me at least) merely participates in 'thought' and its participation in or engagement with exogenous thought, gives rise to this thing we refer to as consciousness, and we subsequently or simultaneously manifest as' being'.... or that which Heidegger referred to as 'Dasein'



M

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. It seems people wish to cling to their 'believies':

God,
Materialism/self-god/no-God
Free will

A combination (house special) theory inclusive of, Dualism plus Bell's super-Determinism plus an exogenous existence of 'thought' (akin to Spinozism) within a functionally a-temporal Universe, would seem to explain things and accommodate almost all rational thought on the matter?

M

Perhaps the strangest issue with dualism is that it should be rebelled against with such enthusiasm.

How do we arbitrate upon the question and arrive at the best possible answer.


First we must recognize the inherent bias on either side of the argument and before one makes a decision one should try to relieve oneself of ones own bias.

Dualists hold that there is a mind body distinction. that minds are independent of bodies and in this sense they suggest that consciousness can exist independent of the body. Dualists have a more agreeable relationship with the notions of God, and supreme consciousness, or life after death etc

Materialists hold that minds are predicated upon bodies, that minds, thought etc is a product of material interactions as per the example above in respect of helium atoms and super fluidity etc) PF Strawson put the materialist position quite clearly when he said that minds are to bodies as scores are to football matches or surfaces are to tables vis one cannot exist without the other. materialists have a more agreeable time with the notion of atheism, 'when you're dead you're dead' and so on and so forth.

It is not surprising that the materialist position is in the ascendancy at the present time. We (westerners) live in a material world in the sense that one can derive more pleasure from more material things than during the period when Dualism was perhaps more in the ascendancy (prior to the industrial revolution) Indeed this was a period when Religion was in the ascendancy as it was the opium of the poor masses, because they could not afford the real stuff. Now that the masses can have their material opium, and all the 'wisdom' that Google affords... the currency or potency of religious opium and of Gods in general have become more of a private self serving affair. There is no God, or we are Gods or we have our own notion of what god is... etc, all this evolution has effectively diluted the Dualist 'cause' and arguably we might describe this century as the 'Century of the Self' (See BBC docu on youtube of same title).

Man has lately become a God unto himself and as such, for many the baby of dualism has been ejected with the bath water of Cartesian Dualism. One must be careful of fashion and trend, they generally show themselves to be ephemeral at best.

If bias is left behind we must ask upon whom does the burden of proof lie... the Materialist or the Dualist.
In any court of law the burden is placed upon the accuser and not the defendant.

Who is the accuser here. I would agruge that it is clearly the materialist, as the materialist is presenting (or attempting to present) material evidence to prove that consciousness is entirely dependent upon the material.

Thought on the other hand does not need material evidence to confirm its existence. This much has been effectively proven by Descartes.

The question now remains, have materialists provided enough or substantial evidence to prove that thought is dependent upon material processes... well, the answer here is clearly NO, and if someone wishes to contract this assertion they must cite the material evidence. Evidence that may well be immediately swallowed up by the preeminence of thought itself.

Therefore on balanced judgement, Descartes has shown that thought exists, and materialists have 'proven' little more than the evident fact that material things are contained or perceived by a process of thought. Thought has not been shown to be a product of some brain locus, or brain totality, or superfluid brain state, Descartes himself suggested that it is manufactured in the pineal gland?!? have we yet to move on from this quackery, or must we persist in the worship of the material because anything else just stinks too much of a divinity?

Thought remains supreme and the notion of its endogenous manufacture is no different to that of religious apriori that the earth is the center of the Universe or that 'man is the measure of all things'. He is a determined trousered ape... at least until proven otherwise.

M

Well....its more complex than a simple 'deeper issue' panacea. The obesity problem and the diabetes problems and the opiate problems for example are all killing people because of the deeper issues of unhappiness and self imposed ignorance. But there are deeper issues still, that pertain to unhappiness and ignorance.

People don't have guns for the sole and somewhat idiotic reason of potentially over-throwing a corrupt government, they have them for deeper issues that are in the same realm of ignorance and unhappiness.

M

I would consider 'war' as a very superficial issue that usually results from an ignorance of deeper ones.
Americans might well be considered as being at war with themselves at present, when one considers the death rate from Obesity, Lifestyle, addictions, RTA's, gun violence, racism etc... once again these are all superficial manifestations of deeper issues.

M

The tyranny factor, as pointed out in the 2nd amendment, should be what is paramount particularly when considering the very same powers that may wish to disarm you are the ones that lie about such things as weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein or arm militants to take out foreign leaders whom they disagree with on matters of money and general business just to create wars that kill masses of innocent lives. — Dalai Dahmer

How might any of these issues be mitigated or addressed via the insanity of 'locked and loaded' public idiocy? I doubt very much that the US government is cautious in respect of foreign or social policy simply because the public have more guns than toasters?

There are deeper issues here

M

Gun ownership/promotion within a civilized, policed, democratic society (unless you are a farmer), is merely a reflection of the limited intellectual capacity of the masses.

I have no doubt that there are definitive inverse correlations between literacy, philosophical-intelligence, and gun ownership/promotion.

We must get used to the fact that some 80% of humanity are functional but of limited intellectual capacity, and hope that evolution will continue/succeed in its work before the idiots destroy global ecology.

M

My main problem with money is that it's really dirty (circulates living flu viruses in society) and that capitalism causes a 15% poverty rate in the USA. Capitalism it it's current form is certainly not just. And Communism isn't the answer either because it doesn't adequately motivate people to help others. — GreenPhilosophy

I see.. your question is more practical than philosophical. Evolution is currently working on this. The practice of coin exchange is very primitive and more advanced societies New Zealand for example are making strident moves towards this global inevitability. NZ uses an EFPOS system which is essentially a bank card, the difference being that the card machines are ubiquitous, and mostly wireless, even hotdog vendors have them and tradesmen have them.

The preservation of cash is physically dirty and socially/morally dysfunctional in that it merely facilitates tax evasion and crime. Be patient ....evolution moves things when human intelligence fails.

M

Evidence suggests that consciousness involves brain activity. We have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of brain activity. — Tyler

What is the evidence that suggests that consciousness involves brain activity? Might it not be even MORE easily asserted that:

Evidence suggests that brain activity involves consciousness, we have not thoroughly tested and understood all aspects of consciousness?

I would suggest that consciousness has been more thoroughly investigated by Philosophy than brain activity has been explained by Science, (however Science is presently in the ascendancy) Consciousness in Philosophical parlance would appear to cause and or contain brain activity, in the same manner that it may contain our perception of 'objective' reality.

Your assertion seems to contain within it a contemporary bias towards the supremacy of this 'brain activity', which seems to point to a currently fashionable refutation of dualism.

Please expand.

M

The Prince
The Fountainhead
A Clockwork Orange
Animal Farm
Mein Kampf
Catch 22
The Outsider
Waiting for Godot
The Bible
The Koran

As always Posty, your posts are serious grounds for thought.

Essentially you seem to be asking two questions, how do you know I am not an evil person?

You don't, you are engaged with my thought.. and evil people can have equally pure thoughts. Hitler was a vegetarian and much of Mein Kampf is a valid appeal for social justice!

So I suppose you have to rely upon your instincts.. eventually (as in Mein Kampf) the evil content slowly exposes itself... but you have to keep reading.....

Your second question appears to point to a favorite of yours: namely why do people on forums such as this, tend to be more destructive in their commentary than constructive or kind?

On balance, it seems to me that on forums such as this one, where anonymity is relatively assured people are free to reveal more of themselves, their deeper angry insecure selves.

We ( the people who post) are generally united by a degree of insecurity and uncertainty, else we would be too busy enjoying the Epicurean pleasures that our status as relatively wealthy westerners affords us. Instead we like to express ourselves on fora, and break lances with our peers. Others play football and score goals, the forum is a bit like an intellectual game of football and many believe that the game is about scoring points and bringing down opponents by fair means or foul.

I think you can tell the x's from the y's by spotting those posters who believe that conceding a goal is as much a victory as scoring one... at least when it pertains to the great 'game' that is Philosophy.

But I might be wrong... I often am.

:)

M

Oh I see what you mean now. That's definitely not the sense in which Wittgenstein thought philosophy was therapeutic. He didn't think philosophy was painful because the pain is a result of ignorance, he thought it was painful because we're confused by philosophical questions. — gurugeorge

Is there such a big difference in being confused and in having ignorance of the truth?

M

I have the impression, that Wittgenstein believed that an apt and appropriate concern for ethics and morality can only arise if we can overcome the instinctual and subconscious aspect of mankind. — Posty McPostface

How might we overcome it if we do not understand it?

M

Devoid of character? Why do you say that? — frank

Well I assume by racism you are referring to the manner of considering another person inferior or superior on the basis of race.

I am a racist in that I think that there are real racial differences between races. I think that white people need to use more sun block than black people, I think that black people are better at rap and singing the blues than white people, I think that on the whole black American culture has more of an insight into the pain of discrimination than white people generally do. I think Asian immigrants generally have a more disciplined work ethic than white westerners... and so on

I am certain that I may be right or wrong in some of these assumptions but they are all essentially racist, I make the same assumptions of my children in that I love them equally but being familiar with them I think one might be better or worse at certain tasks than another might be.

In respect of 'negative racism' I don't think that it actually exist. It is merely a euphemism for 'hatred' 'greed' 'resentment' 'self-interest' etc.

I am not a Christian but I think the Christian ideal of hating hatred is itself a more fruitful engagement with the hatred that is contained within negative racism.

Those who profess 'negative racism' are to be pitied by Philosophy and reviled by social systems.

Character in my estimation is one thing that makes humans different to animals. Ones character is an outward reflection of the depth of ones thought. Negative racists possess no depth of thought and as such no character.

M

The one topic that is sure to generate an ocean of ink is that of God.

The inevitable argument between theists and atheists then ensues full whack. There are always those who deem themselves above the debate and apply terms of agnosticism or personal God in as much as they like to say things like 'I believe in my own definition of a God' which seems little different from a belief that one is a God oneself. Then there are those who make assertions like 'I know there must be something' but I don't believe in anything other than my own moral principal of 'do onto others'.

There is a lot of refinement and hyper refinement of what God is or is not and then there is a lot of hyper refinement in what one actually believes in.

The God question is as old as God. If there is such a thing I doubt if it is particularly perturbed by what us plebs believe or don't believe.

What is most interesting is how the God thing can hijack the passions so readily and so easily.

Opinions on God are like assholes in that everyone has one. To hold an opinion on God is indeed a celebration of the fact that if there is a Go- like intelligence it must be somewhat like our own (probably more open minded than most and certainly a better sense of humor)

This is a philosophy forum and we must bow to the masters in respect of established wisdom. The philosopher who has undoubtedly (IMOP) come the closest to an appropriate answer to the question of God is Spinoza.

I have yet to encounter a God concept that makes more sense to believers and non-believers alike.

M

Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe. — Marcus de Brun


Sorry, I'm not seeing the connection here. — gurugeorge

If we define therapy as a process of relieving pain, and if we describe 'awareness of ones own ignorance' as being somewhat 'painful' : Philosophy as a means of understanding the self and ones place in the Universe.... is the ultimate if not the only therapy.

Indeed all pain is mitigated or agravated by ones Philosophy, ones view of self and ones view of ones 'self in the world'. Therefore all pain (real and imagined) is under the influence of Philosophy.

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at. — Marcus de Brun

What we do, our actions are all without exception instinctually driven. Try to think of one that is not? The 'morality' of an action pertains to the 'why' of an action, why a certain action was or is conducted, establishes its moral or immoral basis. We cannot properly approach the question of why a particular action was effected, without first understanding upon what instinctual premise or drive a given action arises from.

M

What is the character of a racist.

This is an odd question. I would have assumed by definition that a racist is someone who is devoid of character? Outside of that we are all racist to a greater or lesser degree and not all racism is bad racism.

Perhaps one needs to define ones use of the term a little better?

Also what is "multi-racial"?

M

Well put Tom!

I have to raise my hands in the air and admit I am guilty of same and will apply more caution with vague terms.

As Voltaire famously stated. "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms!"

M

I don't think so, and that's a very weird construal of Wittgenstein. Even on the point of philosophy being "therapeutic," that's a common idea about W., and based on reasonable evidence - but Wittgenstein had doubts about that formulation right to the end (which is why On Certainty is starting to look more like an old-fashioned philosophical thesis - a reinventing of the Aristotelian wheel, actually, IMHO). — gurugeorge

Of course Philosophy is 'therapeutic' .....if it was not, then no one would bother with it. It is only non- therapeutic in a Deterministic Universe.

I am unsure as to whether there is indeed a real distinction between Psychology and Philosophy. The mechanistic nature of sense perception and sense analysis via human psychology lies at the heart of Philosophical declarations on the nature of reality.

It would appear that philosophy and particularly moral philosophy are contingent upon an understanding of psychological function. All behavior without exception can be reduced to innate instinctual imperatives that may be conscious or subconscious.

A sound philosophy particularly a sound moral philosophy is entirely predicated upon a proper understanding of the instincts and I think this is what Wittgenstein was ultimately driving at.

I would suggest that rich people tend to be more dishonest than poor people because it requires a bit more dishonesty to justify ones extra share of the earths material resource.

I think these virtues that you describe, are entirely self serving for the vast majority of people, take charity for example, this practice ostensibly includes a degree of honesty, compassion and generosity, however for the most part 'charity' is generally a more morally selfish act and a more socially destructive act than ambivalence might otherwise be.

Oscar Wilde wrote a great essay on the subject entitled 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism', and Zizek refers to the work in the following clip, which is fairly well known and is most entertaining.

https://youtu.be/hpAMbpQ8J7g