But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.
— ChatteringMonkey

But I think people are saying that I think. It’s as if experience wins some sort of points for some reason over non experience. As we’ve agreed, that isn’t a valid evaluation. Error or undefined ensues.

If what they mean is that they really like the experiences of working, maintenance, and seeking forms of entertainment, what makes this any better than nothing? Still invalid. — schopenhauer1

Justification that people give to their beliefs are often not the real reasons for holding a belief... but just that, justifications or post hoc rationalizations. But yeah sure, if that is the reason they give for it, than it's not a very good reason.

↪ChatteringMonkey
To further make the point, let's say there were these two scenarios:
1) A universe devoid of any experience. No people working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

2) A universe with experience. People working, maintaining, entertaining themselves/each other.

Because of what we have said earlier, there is no reason why scenario 2 is better than scenario 1 in any inherent way. It is absurd if you follow the logic to say that it is. — schopenhauer1

Yes i'm saying this evaluation of these two scenario's doesn't make sense, because it kind of assumes an evaluation for some abstract point of view, where there are no given criteria for evaluation and no entity that can value things.

But I don't see the problem in just saying 'life is a good', from within experience, from the perspective of a living being... if that is what the happen to value, which I think we do. I don't think we make some kind of reflective evaluation of life VS non-life when we are saying this, it's more basic and instinctive.

Again, I don't think we want it, but once alive most homeostatic activity becomes what we want out of shear fear of pain of death and being destitute. — schopenhauer1

I don't think this is true in general, at least not for everybody. I've only been afraid of death a few times, in some dangerous situations, and I know that is not what I feel day in day out... that's not what keeps me going. Can't speak for everybody of course, but I don't think I'm special in that regard.

I think we are actually on the same page as to the nonsensicalness of the idea that existence is "good". I'm just pointing out that it is often a fallacy in philosophical thinking when people say, "existence itself is a good". But as we are both pointing out, that is nonsensical at best, and wrong at worst. — schopenhauer1

I'll respond to this in response your most recent post...

We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.
— ChatteringMonkey

But other life does it unthinkingly. We know how life perpetuates and can even prevent it. It wouldn't be enough to say, "That's just what humans do" because it's precisely because humans can freely evaluate and act upon it that this can be a debate; it is not inevitable, but contingent on each person's choices and actions. — schopenhauer1

Thinking plays a role, but not fundamentally. We can reflect on certain valuations, and maybe switch them around a bit or change the ordering, but you always have to start with some base of valuation... you cannot get them out of nothing, thinking needs something to work with.

Take for example the basic feeling of hunger. Maybe we can evaluate whether we are eating to much or the right kind of foods, but we can't really come to the conclusion that eating is bad altogether, unless we find some twisted logic to override that basic valuation with other impulses (like say to need for social approval or recognition in case of some anorexics).

I think the same thing applies to us generally valuing life, we want homeostasis, to propagate our living being in time. You cannot get around it really. Even Schopenhauer himself didn't believe in his own pessimistic philosophy, Nietzsche says, because he played the flute!

We have a need to get things done in order to survive, stay comfortable, and stay entertained. I don't see why this particular arrangement is "good". In that respect, what we do is inevitable. This situation does not change. But why do we want this situation in perpetuity? Your fingernails grow and have to be cut, weeds have to be pruned, vegetables need water, the deer has to be chased after and hunted, the nuts and berries have to be cultivated.. and on and on and on.

Nothingness is something foreign to us. It is an imaginative leap we take symbolized by voidness, sleep, the idea of nothingness. Why is this bad? Again, the stage of experience, and striving after, what's so good anyways? — schopenhauer1

It's bad from the perspective of life, which is the perspective we have, because life generally values life. There's not much else to say about it, it's sort of axiomatic to life.

From the perspective of non-life, from the perspective of nothingness, the question isn't even a valid question to ask because there is nobody to make that value-judgement... it's like asking how much an idea weighs, it doesn't make sense.

Why is human experience a good in itself? — schopenhauer1

1) It literally would not matter to any thing if no thing existed from here on out. — schopenhauer1

Right, without experience there is no one even able to make the valuation of good or bad.

The argument VS nothing cuts both ways though,

- if you think life is bad on the whole then presumably no life would be better
- if you think life is good on the whole then presumably no life would be worse

But these arguments are all of little consequence, because at base the valuation that we prefer life/experience to no life/experience is not based on a rational argument, but on some basic feeling. We are a living being, we want to live, generally... that is what life does.

Moral philosophers, at least the ones I've read, and I'll admit I had some graduate work in ethics and have done some reading but am by no means an expert, seem to ignore the role human nature plays in morality. A system that doesn't take account of the fact that people are more likely to sacrifice for others the more genetic material they have in common is a system doomed to faliure. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Just want to say that I agree with this! It seems so obvious yet seems to be ignored a lot of the time...

The two big competing groups of moral philosophies are the deontological and the utilitarian approach. Both, it seems to me, presuppose an already delienated community as their frame of reference. But does either approach provide a clear answer as to how to draw the borders around that community? — Echarmion

Utilitarianism does to some extend I think, in that it has an in theory simple measure (i.e. pain/pleasure) that isn't restricted to an already delineated community. It's "just" a matter of figuring out how to apply that measure consistently... which is at the same time its biggest problem, it's wholly impractical to do so. That and the fact the theory doesn't really do anything if you don't already agree with the measure it assumes.

Are there moral philosophies which, in your opinion, provide an adequate method to determine the borders of the community? — Echarmion

No I don't think so, we just decide... according to our progressing insight perhaps, to add some very vague qualifier to that.

Are perhaps virtue ethics not just relevant, but unavoidable when it comes to this first step? — Echarmion

Well the focus is on the individual acting in a certain way, so that's your border, a border around 1 person. Or you could say that it promotes moral action without borders because it focuses on individuals acting good regardless of borders and circumstance...

It's pretty much the status quo but no argument has to be made in 99% of cases. Just disregard benefit. How many debates about theism cross over into the territory of whether people should even be trying to convert each other? Or whether one outperforms the other in the area of benefit? Truth-value doesn't go that deep, you simply call the other party wrong, deluded, invalid, unreasonable and walk away. — Judaka

Yes and I think the tacit assumption there is that truth is valuable, which it is... generally. It's a bit like linking someones actions to those of nazi's or thugs, its an appeal to shared underlying valuations.

I see. How would you determine when it's better to accept the utility of a belief or criticise someone for being wrong? And could you see yourself promoting a falsehood you knew to be false because you thought it'd be of benefit to others? — Judaka

I definitely have kept my opinion to myself on occasion, often that is with people I know very well that have certain beliefs and I know they are very unlikely to change their mind, because I tried before... in which case I don't see the point in trying to convince them otherwise.

But actively promoting falsehood is difficult, because I do believe in the value of truth, and so it doesn't come naturally. I guess that it is - more than a benefit or utility calculation - more a matter of virtue-building for me. You try to practice good habits that you think will be good longterm, and actively promoting falsehoods seem counter to that even if it would be beneficial (which is, as I alluded to before, difficult to assess in practice anyway, that is one of the problems with consequentialism).

So ultimately I do think there is something to telling the truth regardless. I seem to have completely changed my mind in the span of two post, which I have to admit does seem a bit questionable :-)... but thank you for pushing me on this point.

Another example could be a Christian who is charitable, compassionate, has a sense of belonging and more, this could potentially take precedence over an atheist's disapproval of what he sees as the Christian's incorrect beliefs or it might not. If the Christian is convinced to be an atheist, perhaps all of those valuable traits will diminish or disappear with the beliefs. — Judaka

That's maybe a better example, because it's I think well documented that de-conversion is actually a very difficult process that doesn't happen overnight. So one could rightly ask whether it would a good thing to try to de-convert some older religious person just because it would lead to more accurate beliefs.

It only really gets interesting when we admit or speculate that the benefits exist but the belief is invalid, faulty, lopsided, wrong. Otherwise, the answer is obvious. I agree that if we have no strong feelings about whether there's a benefit to being inaccurate then we should try to be accurate. — Judaka

Right, here's the thing though, why would it be an interesting question if not because we assume that truth has some beneficial effects? What would an argument that says accuracy/truth should trump benefit regardless even look like? I don't think truth for truth sake makes a whole lot of sense... so I guess that is my answer, truth has utility, and insofar that utility doesn't weight up against the utility of say the belief a religious person has (or dis-utility that person would experience), truth isn't worth it.

I'm no moral realist, but I suppose regardless of you meta-ethical stance, one thing that might happen if you violate moral principles regularly, is social exclusion... which for a social being is bad enough.
— ChatteringMonkey

Violating principles which are believed by society to be moral principles could lead to social exclusion, but simply violating moral principles wouldn't. — Michael

Right, as a moral realist one would make that distinction.

What do you think might happen if you regularly violate your taken-for-granted moral principles?

So what do you think, moral realists? — spirit-salamander

I'm no moral realist, but I suppose regardless of you meta-ethical stance, one thing that might happen if you violate moral principles regularly, is social exclusion... which for a social being is bad enough.

Though I don't pay attention to how I'm received on the internet, I know nobody cares. As for developing my thinking, I don't like the idea of being trapped in the matter of true answer to somebody else's question. A valid response to a question like "is God real" should be "why do you even care to debate this?". Well, maybe I won't actually post that response but that's what I think about their thread. Briefly looking over your threads, you do tend to ask questions beyond the scope of what is true. Your threads could be answered by speaking in terms of and often include a challenge of analysing pros and cons. So even though you say that you aim to speak about only what is true, it seems mostly you are questioning what we should or shouldn't be doing, which I like. — Judaka

I hadn't looked at my posts quite in that way, but good observation, I do tend to think that what matters, or what is valuable, is the most important question.

We can't only ask what is the situation with X, that is not a valid answer. We can't answer what to do without understanding how things are either. We need both. — Judaka

Yes I agree, you can't really make good judgements about where to go if you don't really know where you are.

It's only situations where there's a competing narrative where this "versus' can apply. That a descriptive claim like "I am intelligent and beautiful" we get to choose to emphasise the reasonableness or validity of the claim versus how these beliefs are making the individual feel about themselves. Does that make sense? — Judaka

Yeah, you're talking about descriptive claims... Ok. Though question, because yes context matters. For the purpose of the thread I understand that you coined the question in terms of accuracy of a belief VS product or effect a belief has. But I do wonder if that dichotomy still holds in practice. In case of the narcissist maybe in practice its more a question of short term effects (hurt feelings, blow to the ego) vs long term effects (a more reasonable self-image) that is the effective difference. I know I used to be more cognizant of other peoples feelings and identity, but since have slided more to the idea that in the long term truth is probably more beneficial even if short-term it might have adverse effects on someone. Like, if you don't tell the narcissist that he has an inflated idea of himself, someone else down the line probably will or the world will confront him with his deluded self-image.

So to conclude I would say that, if we would know for a fact that it would have bad effects on someone, short and long-term, then yes I wouldn't necessarily confront them with it... but usually I don't think we know that, it's hard to know what the effects will be, and so I would err on the side of accuracy because in general I think that is beneficial in itself.

Feel free to suggest any of your own examples for discussion on this topic. — Judaka

To put a bit of a spin on the thread, and maybe this is not the direction you had in mind (so feel free to ignore it), I don't think public dialogue, the beliefs we bounce around in society, is about accuracy and validity in the first place. It think it's about where we want to go, and what we should do to get there... so not about "is" but about "ought be" (descriptive vs prescriptive).

Beliefs about "ought be" are not truth-apt in the same way as descriptive "is" claims are. As a moral constructivist I think looking at what kind of effects moral beliefs produce is in fact the way in which you would assess the "accuracy" of that kind of belief.

If you knew that the one which produced the superior effects was the one you believed to be incorrect, would you oppose its promotion or support it? — Judaka

Depends on who I'm addressing and where I am. If i'm posting on a philosophy forum as some random dude on the internet than I don't think the ideas I promote will have much of an effect on way or the other, so I just try to stick to saying whatever I think is true regardless of effects. But when I'm talking to kids for instance, an idea being correct or incorrect is hardly the only thing that matters. So yeah, how people will receive what you say matters, that's an important part of communication.

Yes, there will be more roles (processing food, building stores defending stores in addition to hunting, fishing, gathering) but that doesn't necessitate a hierarchy or an authority. Yes, there will be a territory, more surplus and thus the opportunity for, but not a necessity of, unequal private property. Even if people specialised, that doesn't suggest inequality, and an annual surplus can and did drive peaceful trade between groups.

Cooperatives exist even now in our very hierarchical, very unequal societies. Executive roles exist, but are populated by rotation. All profits are shared equally irrespective of effort or skill. That's more the kind of thing I had in mind.

Stiles outlines in great depth the opportunity for hierarchical structures to form, but concludes that egalitarian DR groups are impossible. — Kenosha Kid

Depends on what you mean with 'necessity' and 'impossible', doesn't it? If you mean physically impossible than sure, that seems like a hard case to make. If it's some soft 'necessity' based on a combination of human psychological tendencies and environmental incentives than maybe there is something there, but that too would be hard to isolate and test either way.

That's in stark contrast to what I've read on the subject, so I'd be interested to hear more. My understanding is that, while we at some point in our lineage evolved social characteristics that drive or give capacity to egalitarianism and altruism that our ape ancestors do not have, there are no similarly unique characteristics for dealing with life in hierarchies. So yes we inherit the pre-social and sub-social apparatus of our parent species, but we are evolved beyond that.
— Kenosha Kid

I did not want to claim that we have a similarly unique tendency towards hierarchy, only that we also have this tendency, which seems to explain a number of biases when it comes to political struggle. Of course these might also merely be side effects of other, more general cognitive biases. — Echarmion

My intuition is the same, we do seem to have a tendency for veneration, to listen to authority too. And from an evolutionary perspective that does make sense to me. I don't think "in the abstract" there is a superior type of organisation, it would depends on circumstances which one is better suited... and so having a certain aptitude for both would seem more evolutionary adaptive.

My hypothesis is that our natural morality, defined as morality without socialization, is under-determined, precisely because we have that capacity for language, culture and socialization... I think it would be evolutionary beneficial to delegate concrete morality to culture for species that have that capacity because culture is more adaptable than genes. it dunno, this is speculation of course, but I does seem plausible to me that the fact that we have that capacity also in turn influenced the course of our evolution. Evolution is never merely a linear sequential development of traits, is it?

Yes, but if you have neither 1 nor 2 then there is nothing you can do.

There will be no social upheaval/discontent because the state will find ways of bribing people or otherwise suppressing their movement.

If there is no appealing political vision, there will be no coherent or organized movement. That's why there isn't any.

You could take communism for your political vision but most people will not go along with that. That's why you only get minority or single-issue movements like Occupy or BLM. — Apollodorus

Yeah no disagreement here, that's why I tend to stay out of politics these days, because I don't see it going anywhere.

But I don't want to close the door entirely or forever either. Maybe things will get bad enough that societal upheaval can't be suppressed, or maybe someone with the right idea's, charisma and willpower, will stand up and succeed in forging a political movement against all odds...

maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes
— ChatteringMonkey

Do you mean like Trump's Capitol insurrection or something bigger? — Apollodorus

I mean something a bit different I suppose, and it'd need to be bigger in the amounts of people supporting it, yes that too. Trump is a sign or symptom of underlying discontent, not the cause right? He's merely the one giving political direction to that discontentment, like extreme right populist parties are doing in Europe. They find fertile ground for their populist ideas, without which their politics wouldn't gain traction... The problem with populism though is that it isn't a solution, their political 'agenda' is mostly things people want to hear, not things that have a chance of being implemented in any sustainable way.

Political parties in Europe around the period of WWII still were tied to their base via unions, health insurance organisations, representation in the education system etc etc... there were links in all layers of society and the institutions. And so the leaders of political parties were still held accountable for what they did, part of the political decision making grew bottom up... The other side of this representation across society was that, if something was decided, they could count on it being implement by their base.

Now these links seem to be gone for the most part and political parties have become these top-down PR-machines that only seem to be geared at getting into power without the ability and ambition to actually implement a political vision.... which is what I would call the "agency-problem" in politics.

So what I think would be needed is

1) social upheaval/discontent. You need 'fertile ground' to be able to grow a political movement that wants to change things.

and 2) someone or some group of people giving direction to that discontent in the form of a political vision and political organisation. That's what was lacking for instance in the occupy movement or the Arab spring,

The answer is education — James Riley

This similar to what John Dewey proposes, to make democracy really work you need educated citizens. I like Dewey, and I like this idea... but again to get to that point you probably need policy and institutional reforms, and for that you need political will which seems to be lacking.

The way I see it there seems to be an 'agency problem' in politics, which is prior to any proposed solution that needs political action. None of the political parties seem to be able or willing to push through reforms that would actually make a difference for the better. I strongly feel that something needs to be done about that to be able to effective tackle some of the other problems.

And yes, it certainly is possible, post WWII politicians were able to come together and actually implement some kind of vision for society, both in the US and in Europe. It hard to see how that could happen now, so maybe massive social upheaval would be what it takes.

We could do a lot, the problem is there isn't enough political will to do any of that. How do we change that?

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human.
— David S

In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.

Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.

Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original. — ChatteringMonkey

So the question is really, why do tend we to think in narratives? What is it about stories that makes us remember them easier? Because we evolved to be good at the social stuff, presumably because that was important for our survival...

I know the basic question has been asked many time and in different ways but what I would like to hear and discuss from others the why of religion or more exactly why do humans have the belief that there is some entity or entities outside of their own species that have influence and determination of their being something after the physical death of a human. — David S

In homo sapiens evolution has delegated part of the species survival functions to culture because we have the capability for language.... we need an education to become fully functional.

Before written language myth and stories were for the longest time the vehicles to transfer knowledge from generation to generation. Religion as a subset of myth, was the veneration of the highest values in a given society. Deification and personification of said values enabled turning them into narratives which could serve as mnemonic devices.

Also, one shouldn't confuse contemporary monotheistic religions with earlier religions, they are mere echoes of something that once served a vital function, pale and impoverished in comparison with the original.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Here's a bit of an argument from left field, and one I don't know I entirely stand behind, but devil's advocate et al...

a. Growth and flourishing is good.

b. We need some adversity to be able to grow to our full potential (Disputable to what extend maybe, but generally a case could be made I think, based on scientific findings even)

c. Sciences makes life generally easier by making the world predictable and making all kinds of technologies possible that make life easier.

(a + b + c) Science stunts our growth and flourishing, therefor science is bad.

But, it may be that philosophy will remain a minority interest but I do think that the issue is to what extent will it survive at all. I think that it partly depends if it can be a bit less abstract and obscure in some ways. — Jack Cummins

Certainly in the foreseeable future it will survive, other posters have pointed to the role it plays alongside and in edifying scientific progress... but even more concrete and urgent is the ethical, value, and socio-political questions that will arise in the wake of developments in artificial intelligence and bio-technology.

In a way philosophy has never been this concrete and 'timely' as now because of technological advancement. As an example I'd point to the thread of guest philosopher David Pearce, if gene-editing becomes a thing (which is an ethical question in itself), then philosophy seems very relevant in trying to formulate answers to the question of what directions we should take. Another very concrete example is the question of moral and legal responsibility and AI etc...

Well in the case of BlackRock it's kind of interesting. The CEO is a lifelong Democrat, and so already buys into this stakeholder theory version of capitalism. But besides that, when it comes to asset managers, where the mentality isn't so short-term, it does well to consider things like climate change -- it's sensible, just as it is with insurance companies. Therefore, shifting investments to ESG funds (which no doubt have their issues) and promoting more transparency and accountability for climate-related strategies seems like a self-interested move. These aren't stupid people.

When it comes to industries most culpable for climate change, like Big Oil and Big Agro, while they are beginning to acknowledge climate change is real and will try to convince everyone that everything they do is "green" are always going to be the ones most resistant to change, as it directly effects their livelihoods. For asset managers, who make their money off of how much they make for their investors (along with fees), there's a different set of priorities. If they see the energy sector as unprofitable in the long term (meaning fossil fuels), it stands to reason they will divest -- if they have any sense at all and, again, this is assuming they're not idiots.

Too little too late, perhaps. — Xtrix

Yes that seems like a plausible explanation. Though I'd guess that a general shift in public opinion and demand for 'green assets' also plays a role here... by which I mean they presumably also see some direct short term profit in shifting these policies. I remember I asked specifically for investment in green funds the last time I discussed my investment strategy with my bank... I'm probably not the only one.

What do we make of this? More window-dressing? A much-needed transitional step away from Friedman/neoliberal economics? — Xtrix

Window-dressing most probably, in that they probably wouldn't do anything that doesn't benefit them in the first place and I'd assume care very little about anything else.... but that doesn't mean that some of the time what benefits them, cannot also benefit the population at large.

Noblesse oblige... Ideally we'd have no one group dominating others, but if we cannot manage that, maybe it's better to have a group identified as such, than to have nameless and invisible groups working in the background. At least they have a window to dress.... Maybe that's part of what's going on here, they are starting to feel the heat of being pushed into the light?

He tries to psychologize everything , but how can we trust his conclusions if they're not based on empirical evidence, data and hard facts. Just dreamt up from his own head . His genealogy of morals , explaining ideas in terms of their historical development to explain morality is probably flawed. — Ross Campbell

Maybe, I would like to see his ideas being really tested empirically... but do keep in mind he didn't see himself as the arbiter of truth, but rather as a 'tempter', he tried something, later to be picked up by future philosophers.... And ultimately what matters to him most was not necessarily that it was true, though I do think he was aiming for that too, but whether it was life-affirming.

sometimes I wonder why Nietzsche is so popular, so influential , is it because he's so provocative, radical, and easily misinterpreted. He seems to be unique among philosophers in that he attacks every tradition and thinker in the history of western thought. — Ross Campbell

First he writes good, and I mean really good, to the point that he spoils the taste. And yes his provocative style appeals to a certain demographic, which is maybe a bit unfortunate... because I think, 'technically' he is a really good philosopher too. Because of his style this maybe goes a bit unnoticed.

Most importantly, I think it's because he talks about something that really concerns people... namely how to live your life. People no doubt will disagree, but that's what I think philosophy is about, since the beginning, since Socrates, i.e. "what is the good life".

There doesn't seem to be any coherent social, ethical or political set of values or structures in his thinking . I think his philosophy is only of relevance to the life of an individual, it couldn't be applied to society. A Nietszean worldview would be anarchy, devoid of ethics, and of science, religion or political systems. — Ross Campbell

Yeah true, "a book for all and none"... he didn't intent to speak to everybody, or society at large, but to the individual. But that is essentially the philosophers way isn't it? What do you do when you find yourself as a thinking individual in this maelstrom of seemingly blind societal forces of tradition. Re-evaluation of values...

And maybe this is also the way to redeem his philosophy from this apparent lack of application to the political and the societal. What he was doing was at the same time more humble and more general. Maybe it's simply not feasible, and a bit of a conceit, to make widesweeping and general statements about society and politics that transcend the particular context of an author. In that case, helping posterior individuals think straight, would also be the best way to (indirectly) influence later societies and politics.

Perhaps Nietzsche's ferocious attack on Christianity was his reaction against the puritanical Victorian Church of his time which was anti semitic, misogynistic, anti gays, authoritarian and conservative. This is as Kierkegaard said a warped hypocritical version of Christianity, not the true message of Christ. I personally think Nietzsche had an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, he was hostile to democracy and modern science also which he claimed strangely were products of a Christian culture which seems absurd. — Ross Campbell

Christian culture had truth as on of it's core values...

Anyway the thing I think you need to understand about his philosophy is that he evaluated things on the axis of life-affirmation - life-denial.... that was his method. It's right there from the start, in his first book, the Apollonian VS the Dionysian. Science too is Apollonian because it tempts to measure the world and make it predictable... ultimately to reduce suffering. It's essentially the same optimism of Socrates whereby one hopes to make the world better by learning/wisdom/conceptualising the world. What keeps one going is the hope for a better world, an ideal or dreamed-up world.

The Dionysian by contrast doesn't hope for a better world, but seeks to affirm this world by valuing it in aesthetic terms, the tragic.

It is not clear what Jesus meant by "Kingdom of God is at hand". Some take it to mean a geopolitical change, but others interpreted it as a change in the person. Paul, on the other hand, is quite clear. The world was at any moment going to undergo a fundamental change with only the saved remaining as "spirit bodies" (I think he gets this from Plato's Phaedo). It, of course, did not happen.

Paul taught that we are born in sin and must be saved. The physical body is a slave to sin. Hence the saved will be "spirit bodies". The Earth will be transformed to Heaven on Earth. — Fooloso4

The kingdom of God is psychological state according to Nietzsche... a state beyond suffering, completely peaceful... by denying the world. In the symbology he often uses, it's at end of the apollonian spectrum, the dream... hence dionysus VS the crucified. The Antichrist is where he gets into this I think.

What are they? Or, more precisely, what were they before the recent response to immigration? The reason I ask is, I want some of that, and yet my fellow Americans scream "Socialism" at the top of their lungs whenever anyone mentions the tax rates and benefits in the rest of the developed world. — James Riley

Well what we have is not the accomplishment of current socialist parties, but something socialist, Christian-democrats and liberals worked out after WWII. What they are now is hard to tell actually, they have been part of the establishment so long now that that's probably what defines them the most... another faction trying to keep themselves in power.

But yeah, I get that you are sceptical of the 'socialism scare' that has been promoted in the US since the cold war. I'm not coming from that point of view.

Personally, I'm confused about all the slings and arrows toward socialism. — James Riley

I'm not against socialism, even said so explicitly, just trying to be honest about its role historically.

I'm European, most governments in Europe aren't really socialist at this point. But that's a bit besides the point. Socialist movement were fiercely anti-clerical, they sure did have a big hand in secularisation... and failed to provide a alternative story that inspired forming communities around. Now a lot of their traditional voting public have shifted to voting for extreme right parties that do try to provide some kind of story, however BS it is. Anyway that's the long story short, and probably a bit unnuanced, but I don't really have the time right now.

Edit: Or here is another angle to maybe help you understand it, socialism is somewhat of an intellectual or "dialectical" movement that is typically at odds with tradition (even aside from religion). The "people" like their traditions, it's something they can identify with and build communities around.

Dialectics is a dissolvent for traditions... Socrates VS Homer/the gods.

Then your notion of "socialism" is strange indeed, and scope of history limited. — Xtrix

No much of an argument to respond to here. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that socialism was instrumental in tearing down existing societal structures... like say religious institutions.

I'm really not sure what you're talking about here. There's risk in anything -- whether we join together or not. There is far greater risk, in my view, of clinging to this dogma of rugged individualism, and so keeping ourselves isolated and trying to "go it alone" on everything. There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades.

You appear to be overthinking it. — Xtrix

The point you are making (one which I agree with to be clear) has implication, not mere eventualities or risks... and I'm not sure people realise this and/or are willing to accept those implications.

Maybe I'm overthinking it, or maybe most don't think things through far enough... It's easy to point at this or that in isolation, it's another thing to figure out how things hang together and what the ramifications are of changing one variable in the equation. I'm saying individualism is a package deal of sorts with other things we might or might not value. I agree with you point, and I was looking to take it bit further... but it's fine, we can leave it at this.

I don't know if we're just talking (metaphorically) different languages here, but this juxtaposition makes no sense to me. What people hope and wish for is usually a central part of what communities are "actually" build around. — Echarmion

Here's how to make sense of it. There were no marxist communities, but political parties that in most countries didn't get to rule the community. When a community is 'actually' build around an ideology you have institutions that represent and embody those ideas... like say the church in Western Christian communities of old.

That's basically the exact opposite of how I see things. The whole reason Marxism was so powerful and ended up so terrible was because it had, as it's goal, a powerful utopian vision - the classless society. A Rousseauean paradise. And because it was such a grand goal, people were willing to do grand things for it - including grand destruction. — Echarmion

Maybe what I said makes more sense in light of my answer above. Marxism was aiming to tear down existing structures and institutions that embodies ideologies that where counter to marxist ideology. You cannot have marxism if those institutions are still operating.

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...)
— ChatteringMonkey

This view isn't compatible with the evidence. There were significant Marxist movements around the world, united by a shared vision. They were occasionally close to coming to power in Germany and France. Nor can either the USSR or the PRC be reduced to "Stalinist personality cult". In the beginning, genuine hope and Identification with the ideals of Marxism existed. And there was genuine societal transformation that is visible until today, for example in the area of women's rights. — Echarmion

I'm not denying that some people genuinely hoped that they could built a Marxist state. But i'm not talking about what people hoped or wished for, I'm looking at what existing communities actually were built around. Marxist movements where political movements looking to overthrow the existing structure, looking to tear down... in the first place. Whatever came after was something else. Maybe we can quibble about the details of what it exactly was, but I think my original point still stands, ideologies of the left don't really offer us something substantial to build communities around.

And I mean this shouldn't be surprising really, if you look at what the common values of the left are, they are critical or reactionary for the most part... they don't stand on their own. It's freedom from something else, non-discrimination in reaction to some discriminatory traditional practice, equality as a reaction to inequalities created by existing societal structures, etc...

Marxism is literally the most powerful political movement in recent history. The only movements of comparable scope and influence are the major world religions (and perhaps capitalism, though there is an interesting discussion about that to be had). Given the tremendous influence on world history exercised by this ideology, it seems weird to claim that it hasn't "build" anything. — Echarmion

Marxism didn't "build" the communities, or "Marxist" states... it usually had to devolve into some kind a authoritarian person-cult to created some kind of shared ideology (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro etc...)

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too?
— ChatteringMonkey
No, I think this is backwards anyway. Once the original sense of community is lost, it cannot be rebuild. It's like an arm that was cut off and then sewn back on: it's never quite the same and doesn't have the same functionality. — baker

I dunno if that is true. It's seems to me that given the chance people will look for ways to build communities, i'm thinking of fans of sports-club for instance, or even the recent rise of far-right/nationalism/populism can be seen under that light. It won't be the same (and maybe that's a good thing), but new forms of community will be built it seems to me.

Just read this, by Anand Giridharadas, which also sums up nicely what I was driving at before:


The only solutions to our biggest shared challenges are solutions that have the following four characteristics: they're public, institutional, democratic, and universal. In other words, they solve the problem at the root, for everyone.

Anybody trying to sell you the notion that they have some quick-win, low-hanging-fruit, fill-the-gap thing that happens to be funded by the people causing the problem is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

What we have to do is reclaim the story that what we do together is more interesting, more compelling, more powerful, more valuable, than what we do alone.

The religion of the neoliberal era, the spiritual tradition of the neoliberal era, has been the notion that what we do alone is better and more beautiful than what we do together.

That was a massive propaganda push. It's incredibly counterintuitive. It goes in defiance of most traditions in the world, so it took a lot of work, but they did it. They pulled it off.

Margaret Thatcher literally saying, "There's no such thing as society” — which of your ancestors in any community around the world would have understood the notion that there's no such thing as society, only individual men and women?

That is a profoundly modern idea, a bullshit idea, a ridiculous idea, that none of our ancestors would have recognized, because all of our ancestors, wherever they came from, understood that they live in societies and would have felt dead to not live in societies of people with whom they had interdependence.

Over the last 40 years, we got sold this fraudulent religion, which only benefits those at the top, that what we do alone is great — and what we do together is corrupt, is tyrannical, is evil. It's false. It has hurt untold numbers of people. It's come crashing and burning down with Covid, which is the ultimate expression of a phenomenon where being left alone is literally death.

It's time to reclaim the story and venerate the tradition of valuing what we do together.
— Giridharadas

I agree wholeheartedly. — Xtrix

It's not just neo-liberal ideology that is to blame though, that's only part of the story I'd say and a bit short-sighted. Socialism historically has been instrumental in breaking down any societal story that connects communities, be it religion, nationalism, ethnic traditions etc... . Granted a lot of those stories are suspect in that they also serve to justify certain power structures and all inequalities and injustices that come with that. But still, what have ideologies on the left been other than 'critical', i.e. aimed at tearing down something rather than building up a community around shared ideas.

Recent woke/identity politics are only the next iteration and further splintering of shared categories that may bind a communities together into something more than a collection of individuals. The focus is for the most part on how any cultural tradition/practice discriminates or impinges on individuals freely expressing their particular individuality. The idea that an individual might in some cases have to give up some of their individuality for a common good is almost blasphemous...

Anyway, my intention is not to bash the left here, just to say that neo-liberalism is far from the only cause, and that if there is to be a solution (i.e. "valuing what we do together") we probably should take all causes into account.

So beware what you wish for. "Valuing what we do together", building communities usually implies values and stories build around common goods and goals, and those usually end up not being very sensitive to particular individuals. Or do we really think we can have our cake and eat it too?

I'm having a hard time pointing out what apathy may be about; anyone care to elucidate? — Shawn

Yeah, i've been thinking about for a bit and read the wiki baker referred to, which was rather un-illuminating apart from maybe the following sentence:

"Another sign is a lack of caring, of being unfeeling about things, whether that be your appearance, hygiene, your relationships, your community's welfare, the world's welfare etc.; all of this, Norris relates, is connected to the hopelessness and vague unease that arises from having too many choices, lacking true commitment, of being "a slave from within".

It think the bolded part is a step in the right direction. I think it's not just laziness as an 'uncaused temperamental disposition', but seems to me to be caused by being overwhelmed by a seemingly insurmountable amount of things that need to be done to get where you ideally want to be... to the point that you come to view everything as pointless as you realize your ideal can't be met. So I'd say it's a sort of frustrated or burned-out idealism.

Willy has the agency not to create the world or rather not to force others into the world in the first place, no? — schopenhauer1

There's no real world equivalent for Willy. Like who does the forcing or creating? Not a single person, by a single action... how do you assign agency to something that happens over time compounding actions by many people?

What happens if Willy can imagine other worlds that are better, but the best he can do is create the one described in the OP? — schopenhauer1

Then it cannot be something to be blamed for morally. Moral evaluations require some agency typically, the ability to do otherwise...

In any case, I take it you meant the thought experiment to shed some light on the real world. I don't think it does, because we indeed don't have the ability to create any world we want... and there is no one Willy that created this world to begin with.