It does necessarily mean that what is being comprehended is the mind because the contents of the mind (like “conscious experience” or “phenomenal consciousness”) are necessarily mental. — NOS4A2

Phenomenal experience isn't necessarily "all in your mind" though. I explained earlier, if it is epistemological idealism, it is the mind's affect/effect on the object/world. If it is ontological idealism, it could be the case that it is a part of a more foundational mental process observing other parts of or other mental processes. But the way you make it seem is all idealisms believe that "it's all in the mind", kind of like a naive idealism/subjectivism/solipsism. That would be a gross mischaracterization of idealism.

The device you’re using to type those words. What sort of shape did you make of this device? What of it has changed and become of it since you comprehended it? Can you point to these changes? — NOS4A2

But surely, the only way I know about these changes or even "change" itself is through comprehending through my mind.

If it was comprehending anything that wasn’t mind it would be comprehending something that was independent of mind. — NOS4A2

No, that's not what mind-dependent means. Mind-dependent simply means that mind is comprehending/shaping/experiencing the reality in order for it to appear as it does (or in some constructions, for it to exist but then that gets into the schools of ontological and epistemological idealism). It does not mean that what is being comprehended is necessarily "the mind".

It’s a circular answer. And you could never point to, illustrate, or show me a picture of something the mind comprehends. So why do you believe it? — NOS4A2

This I don't get at all. Quite the opposite. Every object and thing I think about is dependent of my mind. Name one thing that is not comprehended by the mind?

do not get them, and I don’t know how one could. If mind-dependent objects are everything the mind is comprehending, then it is comprehending itself. — NOS4A2

What do you mean "then it is comprehending itself"? That doesn't seem like you are characterizing it correctly.

It’s too circular for my own tastes. It perpetually raises the question: what is it the mind is comprehending? Again, no one could produce such an object. — NOS4A2

It's comprehending all the things that the mind comprehends. I don't get the question. All we know (literally) is what the mind has comprehended. How are you confused about that. Or how are you skeptical about that?

I've read their arguments but they cannot show me a single mind-dependent object. Hence my incredulity. Are you able to point to one without pointing to your own forehead?

A better explanation for me is that the idealist holds a naive view of his own biology (he cannot see his optical nerve, for instance), and so assumes that the observable parameters of biological arrangements cannot explain mental phenomenon. — NOS4A2

Your response indicates to me you might not get the idealist arguments then. The “mind-dependent object” is everything the mind is comprehending. No object is not comprehended otherwise a contradiction, this there isn’t anything that is not mind-dependent.

It may not be the case that they are arguing that world is wholly in their mind, but every object or substance they claim constitutes reality cannot be found anywhere else, which is suspiciously convenient. — NOS4A2

I think you overshot their arguments and went right to incredulity. Implicitly direct realism presumes animals like humans have a god-like (near) perfect view of reality. Too many problems arise from this.

Doesn’t the fact that idealist points away from his mind and towards something else betray his own argument? — NOS4A2

Idealism doesn't necessitate the belief that the world is wholly "in one's mind". For example Kastrup (and to a degree Schopenhauer's) ontological idealism necessitates the world is mental process "all the way down". Thus, objects are the appearance, and mental process the reality. This is a bit different than say, Kantian Idealism which posits an epistemological idealism whereby there's no direct knowledge of the objects/world, only the appearance as shaped by cognitive faculties. The world "in itself" would be an "undefined error" (like 1/0). The presumption is, if there are not things like time/space/qualities/shape/quantities, etc. what is the world? It would seem that those categories necessitate (or at least are defined by) immediate experience or abstracted observation and reflection.

Thus there is not a denial of a "there" there in terms of the outside, by many idealist approaches to metaphysics and epistemology. The one that comes closest to the idea that there is absoutely no "there" there, is Berekely's Subjective Idealism. However, not all idealisms are the same. The things they have in common is the belief that the nature of reality can never really be extricated from mentality. It either has to have a subject to (metaphorically and literally) "take shape", or reality in some way, is comprised itself of mentality in its very nature.

I would say that objective reality is a mind-at-large, and our conscious experience is a survival-based dashboard of experience of mental events. Since you said you agree that the world is mind-dependent, what do you think that entails or implies? — Bob Ross

Is this some sort of Analytic Idealism?

This is where I quote Socrates on knowing.

Also, it could just be how individuals process various social activities. This processing isn't itself inherent, but how the person interacts with a social environment. You have to learn to want the thing before you get jealous over it. You have to learn to want X, Y, Z mate to get jealous, or sad, or angry, or disappointed for not having it.

This kind of phenomena can be directed at anything really.

I'm not comparing behaviours; I'm pointing out the evolutionary antecedents. Having a greater degree of cognitive flexibility doesn't exempt an entire species from biology. — Vera Mont

Look at some of most notorious EP tropes. Many times it goes like "Men do this but women do that". How do we know that it isn't all just culture? For example, "Men are interested in the breeding potential of a women subconsciously, and a women is interested in the ability to gather resources from men." That kind of behavior is so complex and conceptual-based, that it is extremely difficult to tie that to any biologically selected module. Rather, if it is seen cross-culturally, it may be because it's simply "what works" sociologically. But that is selecting for cultural practice rather than biological cognitive module.

Then why do stags and rams bash one another's brains out for the privilege? Why do peacocks and lyre birds encumber themselves with those ridiculous tails? The genetic imperative is far, far older than humans. True, we have produced some individuals who resist the impulse and even a few who never experience it at all, but I think we are a minority. And you're right, I can't prove it. — Vera Mont

As per the EP thread, the process for reproduction is largely learned, not innate. What is innate is simply the pleasure aspect. The fact that it's directed to another person, and the whole artifice of courting/initiating/romancing/marrying etc. is largely cultural. It's so embedded in the culture that it seems innate. We also (as you seem to be doing) make false analogies. Because birds and mammals display various elaborate behaviors, that must mean our elaborate behaviors come from the same origin. A bat and a bird fly, but not for the same evolutionary reasons. They are only superficially similar. The same with the human's cultural way of mating versus other animals who have a more if/then biological origin (e.g. if this time of season, then do that, etc.).

Other animals do not have conceptual thinking, self-awareness, language, and cultural transmission of the kind or degree of humans. How can we really compare? I'm not saying that we don't have some innateness. Fear, fascination seems innate for example. Some vague sense of injustice seems pretty close to innate. But our brains are ready for plasticity more than activating modular if/then programming.

That just makes it a shared grief, which can quite possibly lead to mass hysteria - which can end anywhere. — Vera Mont

Would it?

The fear of infertility is far more visceral and less intellectual than the desire to fly or be famous. It's often a consuming obsession like religion and patriotism. Those widely-held obsessions drive a good deal of human behaviour, both individual and collective. — Vera Mont

So this flows into the prior conversation I was having with @Srap Tasmaner on evolutionary psychology. There is nothing inherent in the desire for (children). I don't think you can prove it's any more than a culturally contrived (albeit strongly promoted). There is nothing inherent in it. Also, the loss of it, is not going to implode our psychological makeup and make us bomb-throwing nihilists or even suicidals. You still must not starve, stay comfortable, and find some entertainment. You keep doing what you do albeit with one less thing that you can achieve.

If anything, it's simply fear of missing out, but that goes with a lot of other desires. And anyways, that fear isn't really a thing if the very achievement is no longer an option for anyone (not just you).

They do so! I've witnessed it close up, young couples laying elaborate plans for the babies they intended to produce. — Vera Mont

Right, if there wasn’t a prospect of children I meant…

Some people, yes. They can become quite obsessed with procreation — Vera Mont

Some people are obsessed with a lot of different things.

Desires thwarted account for a very great deal of human despair, mental illness, homicide and suicide. — Vera Mont

The dream to do X is conceptual and there is anything inherently different about this desire other than cultural cues which is my point.

Their behaviour is influenced, too: they drive more carefully, take fewer risks, drink less, try not to swear or set a bad example; hide their less laudable actions and fear their children's censure.
Not all parents, of course, but I think the majority do, to whatever extent their social position permits. — Vera Mont

Presumably that is for the immediate upbringing of the child who is already born. You don't "not swear" for example, because of a not-yet-born child. People wouldn't save or make plans for a future child, but would that put someone in existential despair? It's simply a desire thwarted. That happens all the time. We would be reifying the concept of no child if we made it a bigger deal than any other thwarted desire.

The cut-up technique of chaos magic gives insight into art, politics and science. — RussellA

So this is akin to post-modernism's notion of "all is text". What is the grand narrative? The other tendency is some sort of unitary philosophy or grand narrative for which everything can fit into. Fukuyama, Hegel, Marx, embody this in philosophy of history. Evolutionary psychology might embody this in a sort of scientism. And on and on.

The counter to this is simply "laws of the universe". There are universal constants. Technology processes information. Energy is being transformed into other forms of energy. This is something that you can refute in words, but not in experience.

Well, since the genre is, in effect, a Dystopia-Dying Earth hybrid, "individual habits or behavior" are only, even primarily, symptoms of accelerating societal collapse which, of course, included labor-consumer collapse. The Children of Men is a speculative novel, not a psycho-sociological treatise. — 180 Proof

Agreed. I was riffing off some of the implications of the themes, I was not claiming the author or director was explicitly making it about this alone. Obviously it takes place within the context of a collapsing labor-consumer structure.

It was reasonable to struggle, to suffer, perhaps even to die, for a more just, a more compassionate society, but not in a world with no future where, all too soon, the very words 'justice', 'compassion', 'society’, 'struggle', 'evil', would be unheard echoes on an empty air.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070526121608/http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/bowman.htm — P.D. James, interview (2007)

Cool quote. But this then goes back to my main question regarding the theme of the "hope" of a new generation and its affect/effect on society. Do people generally live their daily lives because of future generations? And would it matter in any moral/psychological way (that is to say, beyond the economic collapse of the system)? People do things in the broader society, generally to get paid. People act ethically in the personal sphere because they have some sort of notion internally, whether that be an internalized principle/directive, a feeling, or an intuition (of course all ripe for meta-ethical exploration). Sometimes you can combine them, and a principle or feeling drives someone to pick a career associated with things that "help" people (e.g. social worker, nurse, etc.). However, the idea/principle/notion that "future generations won't be around" motivates any of this- that is a stretch.

The only area left is a sort of "political ethics". These are ethics regarding collective actions for the future (e.g. climate change, economic longevity, world peace, etc.). However, these would simply drop by the wayside as unnecessary. Political ethics, however, are not driving personal ethics, let alone most (or any) aspects of our daily interactions per se. It affects those who desire to have children and those whose lives revolve around that idea, but that's not some innate motivator. All the examples given thus far are epiphenomal/contingent and cultural. There is nothing about it that would make us, upon instantly knowing there would be no new generation, give up and start blowing shit up, or even changing much about our daily lives.

It actually gives too much credit to the average person who apparently doesn't self-reflect about purpose all that much. People rarely go into such existential despair that they give up on life. As a pessimist, I would encourage people to pursue the limits of existential purpose in Cioran fashion, but as Zapffe laid out:

- Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".[5]

- Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness".[5] The anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal to consistently focus their attention on. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society and stated that "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the laws of life, the people, the future"[5] are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.

-Distraction is when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".[5] Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.

-Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individuals distance themselves and look at their existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g., writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself pointed out that his produced works were the product of sublimation. — Wiki

P.D James is positing that Zapffe's psychological mechanisms would collapse, and people would feel existential dread (and apparently destructive nihilistic despair) upon realizing there is no future generation. In Zapffean terms, she thinks that "future generations" are some sort of foundational "anchoring mechanism" that if done away with, would devastate the human psyche. I am just questioning that notion because of our pretty immediate way we go about the world, generally non-reflective that is. She gives us too much credit, if anything. However, it does make for cool fiction.

@Vera Mont @Srap Tasmaner @BC

It would be devastating for society (meaning the economy), not because of a lack of workers, but because of a lack of customers, long before they would have reached the age to join the workforce.

Of course, it would be fantastic for the planet. — LuckyR

Yep, we cannot forget the reproduction of the consumption side of things- the necessity for more demand. More customers.

If it could be isolated as philosophical proposition, I suppose it would more likely divide the world into hedonists and mystics. — Vera Mont

What do you mean by this? Do we not have that now?

is wrong, which means we are expected to recognize there is an alternative. I have not sold, beaten, exploited or browbeaten any of my children, nor have I forced my religion onto them or sent them to die in a pointless war. Am I doing it wrong? — Srap Tasmaner

You don't have to do that for @Vera Mont to be right. He might have used the extreme cases, but just being born presents the (almost) necessary feature of keeping the economic engine (in whatever form tribal or industrial) going. The practical part of the doomsday in the movie displays this threat (of no next generation to continue the economy) well.

I suspect PD James took this 'inter-generational principal' seriously and her novel is a speculation that when it breakdowns for whatever reason (IIRC, she doesn't give one and neither does the film) the consequences will be dystopian (e.g. fascist, nihilistic). A cautionary tale about "just plain old selfish" unsustainable, philistine, presentism – a decadent civilization growing morbidly obese from cannibalizing its young (its future) – in the late 20th / early 21st century. In other words, like an old song says
You ain't gonna miss your water until your well runs dry ... — 180 Proof

Right, we are going to disagree as to where the selfishness lies here. The next generation is used to support the current one because it must. However, as to the reaction to the news of no future generation, if the material economic aspects were not relevant, there is no "existential" or individual reason we would change much of our behavior. The "doomsday" part is from the fact that no people will be around to keep the economy going. But the idea of, "Oh no! What shall I do if there isn't a future generation" doesn't seem to be a factor in our individual habits or behavior. Sure, it can be a cultural feature like the Iroquois but that's more a cultural feature, not a necessary part of our daily thought patterns (unless one fully enculturates that type of ethos perhaps, but that can be said of anything).

Some things, yes, I think so. The last couple of generations of super-rich would redouble their efforts to secure an immortality of some kind for themselves - whether as corpsicles or cyborgs or in the matrix or in a vat - they would probably explore all of those technologies to whatever degree their money and influence enable them. This would automatically mean withdrawing funds from political campaigns, long-term investments, sheltered bank accounts, trust funds and charities. — Vera Mont

You propose interesting scenarios there but I guess this gets to the heart of the matter. Why would future people being born or not born dictate what the rich would do any more than currently (all practical things being equal.. as I said, the practical issues are worked out in this scenario as far as the economics).

I imagine the younger ones would splash out some spectacular end-of-the-world parties, and so would many people of lesser means. No more saving for the children's education, family health insurance premiums, term deposits: you can't take it with you and there's nobody to leave it to. Once the last generation of dependent young was out of the nest, the shape of coupling would change - no planning and providing for a family, so why bother with marriage and career? No eager young college graduates nipping at your job, so why not just coast?
Also, the enormous market in baby and child products would implode along with its retail outlets and advertisers; a number of large corporations would be wiped out. Overall, a massive redeployment of capital and an unrecognizably altered economy.
To some extent, the approaching climate doomesday is prompting similar behaviour: a world-wide closing panic, wherein the haves are gobbling up whatever is left of the world as fast as they possibly can and the more ruthless politicians are enabling them. — Vera Mont

But why would there be doomsday parties anymore than the parties that go on now when in this scenario, all the practical considerations are accounted for in a "soft landing"? Why does the idea of no children really change anything? Also, the presumption that marriage is only to procreate seems pretty old-fashioned, even at this point. Since the 60s it's increasingly seen as a lifestyle choice, a personal choice, a legally recognized love interest or companion. It hasn't represented "the continuation of the family line" for quite some time, I'd say (in the Western world at least).

With that redeployment of liquid assets, and a concomitant collapse of banks, I imagine a massive surge in unemployment - with an ever-changing profile of the unemployed population when it's joined by military and law-enforcement personnel the governments can't to pay anymore - neglect of infrastructure, fragmentation of power delivery and transportation, cessation of social services... and a huge rise in crime. As long as the rich can afford private armies, the rest of us would have to take what we need from one another, as we increasingly do now, but in a few years, there would be little or nothing left to own.
The small-footprint, self-reliant homesteaders and survivalists might do all right well into old age, if they joined forces. But they wouldn't; the survivalists would raid the homesteads and take their stuff, but no their knowledge. — Vera Mont

Right, so which is why in this scenario I made sure to mention that the practical problems were figured out to see if we can isolate if just the idea of no children really changes anything existentially, personally, or individually.

Besides likely curtailment of both your earning and the availability of goods: whatever the people you depend on stop doing; whatever the people who want your possessions take; if they're hungry enough, the loss of your pets and your pantry. — Vera Mont

Ibid

Nothing new there! Why do you think major religions forbid non-reproductive sex? They've always wanted fresh meat for the congregations, for the army, for the tax-collector, for the factories and fields. Elites need the lowest two or three tiers of society to be the most numerous and least valued, so that they can be kept perpetually at one another's throat, anxious, suspicious, jealous. Fear, loathing and the worship of their betters is what keeps the peons compliant. Even though, in pragmatic terms, they should have backed off that policy a few decades ago, they can't seem to let go of it as a divide-to-conquer political issue. — Vera Mont

Yeah, very true. People need to not think about why they do it in order for the scheme to carry on. I'm very disheartened at how developing countries and immigrants to Western countries sometimes are seen as "determined" whereas the fully integrated Westerner (whether that includes recently integrated immigrants orther upper classes of the developing world), tend to be seen as having free will agency. As if traditional cultures negates any sense of self-reflection. They are just completely alien to the concept apparently. And this, unfortunately, to some extent, may be true.

The trick, as used by many writers on philosophy, including sometimes the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is to start by arranging a set of appropriate terminology in some random order and then grammatically connecting them. — RussellA

IE, as long as the terminology is appropriate, it is often the role of the reader to make sense of the article rather than the role of the writer. — RussellA

:up: Damn. You just summed up modern philosophy pretty darn well!

The human mind is so hyper-ready and prepared to find meaning in any way possible, that it will find one in the most obtuse and obscure sources. It will anchor in prior knowledge (pace Vygotsky) and use schema to fit into their own umwelt framework.

I am familiar with the plot, but have neither read the book nor seen the movie. Have you seen it? Is it any good? — BC

I saw it a long time ago but was reminded of it again recently. Yes it was good as far as dystopian sci-fi's go. I have no problem with the movie as far as directing, plot, acting, etc. Rather, I am just taking objection with one of the premises regarding how we would act if reproduction ended.



So let's say that the practical fallout was not an issue. That is to say, it was somehow all worked out how we would maintain society until the last person died. So in this case, it is just the "idea" that no future people would exist after this generation, with no practical extenuating circumstances to complicate how we would react. What about this "idea" would change things really? Consequences are still the same. You still need to have money to buy goods and services. You still do your hobbies and interests and pastimes and errands and chores and gatherings with friends and family. What exactly changes in your individual life? Nothing in my life (beyond the practical matter of workers sustaining the economy) is predicated on future generations. The idea does not cross my mind in a conscious way, nor dare I say lurk somewhere in the back of my mind ensuring me that existence is fine and dandy (though by definition, I guess that is impossible to substantiate).

In fact, if anything, this scenario shows us the real dark lurking secret. That is to say that, what is really the "problem" is we wouldn't have enough "workers" to sustain our way of life. So in the end, if we think of future generations at all, it is just plain old selfish, and very practical economic reasons. Rather, we would be worried (not sad) about the pyramid scheme of workers not fulfilling jobs to sustain the rest of the pyramid. @BC, you mentioned Japan isn't overly concerned, but they are in only the fact that they don't have a lot of workers on the bottom of the pyramid to sustain them. So as a demographic issue, it does. But I believe you are correct on the more numinous "existential" front.

At the end of the day, it is about cultivating and reproducing our workers to ensure our pensions and lifestyles don't go to shit. How lovely we all are to "allow" future generations the "chance" to keep this scheme going all these years. Throw more workers in the mix, comrade. We are running low! Life must be good.. It is good, right? See all the gadgets? Touch grass. Make friends. Climb the mountains. Take advice from gurus and internet people. COmMuNnITy!!! See all the phrases that make it so that is about existential issues and not demographics. We need our slogans to motivate. We are more clever than we think. Cultural tropes are epiphenomal. Rarely is it just made up de novo but are rehashed from previous tropes that worked, and in dialectic fashion, just get tweaked to the new circumstances, but with the same message.

I had something similar but different take- more post-modernism versus information theory:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14334/adventures-in-metaphysics-2-information-vs-stories/p1

My anthropology of the figure of Jesus was as (to adopt a phrase from popular Eastern philosophy) the 'god-realised man'. His mode of life was a wandering ascetic very much along the lines of other axial-age sages (although that period is customarily a few centuries earlier). So the speeches about the kingdom of Heaven were not political - they were pointers to the state of realisation that he had reached, similar in some respects to those of the Vedic rishis. (I don't necessarily accept the New Age theory that he went to the East for some years prior to his teaching mission, although it can't be ruled out, as there was communication and travel along the Silk Road.) In any case, I think to see him in any terms other than as a harbinger of a revolution in consciousness - as a frustrated political revolutionary, for instance - is a misunderstanding of what he was communicating, in my view. — Quixodian

I guess Jesus is whatever you want him to be or not be. The myths surrounding him arise from various Greco-Roman thought. Some texts of the Gospels ver batim take lines from the Iliad and Odyssey. Just playing on tropes that were familiar with the time. Beneath that, I think was a simpler story, but it's not as enchanting maybe, and less universalistic in scope and audience.

You can make the case and indeed I think that many of the Gnostics would claim Paul as one of their own (although I'd have to research it). — Quixodian

I am not saying they would or wouldn't, but simply that his writings had Gnostic influence. Gnostics themselves were a collection of ideas that varied widely. The tradition of the Gospel of Thomas was much different than the Sethians, who were very different than the Valentinans, who were very different than the Hermetic Gnostics. It was more thematic than ideologically aligned.

But the main argument against the gnostics was against their elitism - the idea that only those perfected (which was the meaning of 'Cathar', from which we get 'catharsis') were 'saved'. Whereas the mainstream doctrine was that 'all who believe will be saved'. This is a tension in Christianity which has existed from the very outset. I think to propose a kind of middle ground is to recognise the role of spiritual insight. That term 'gnosis' has a counterpart in Indian religions, 'Jñāna', which is recognisably from the same indo-european linguistic root. But I think the Indian religions did a much better job of preserving the importance of that insight, overall (hence the upsurge of interest in them since the Enlightenment. See American Veda, for instance.) — Quixodian

Perhaps. I don't care either way. I see Paul as a myth-maker, more than anything. Using his own terminology, he "grafted" various mystery-cults, and Gnostic themes over a Judaic substrate. I think at the end of the day, this proved devastating for both Judaism and the syncretic pluralism of the Greco-Roman paganism of the time. He screwed over both and created the monster that eventually sprouted religious theology as the lens through which all philosophy was conducted up until around the time of Spinoza and Descartes (Early Modern Philosophy).

I am pro-Jacob (James), the brother of Jesus who took over the original sect in Jerusalem right after his death. The tensions between Jacob and Paul can be seen in Acts and certainly epistles like Galatians. I think Jacob never accepted Paul, and that tradition remained even unto the late 400s with the Ebionite descendants of the original group, as written by Epiphanius. Jesus was an apocalyptic who preached that the end of the world was immanent, and that the Son of Man (who later became known as Metatron) would help him usher in the Kingdom of God and the Messianic Age. Didn't happen. His brother tried to head the fallout group. They followed Mosaic Law as Jesus would have presumably taught it, under the leadership of his brother Jacob. My guess is the Jesus and Jacob were loosely associated with Pharisees and Essenes. Jacob probably thought Jesus wasn't truly dead. That was their main deviation with other sects at that point. Apparently they went by the name "Ebionities" when later Church Fathers wrote about them (presumably in very small numbers by that time of the 400s CE). Eventually they would have died out as a small, and inconsequential group, got reabsorbed into Rabbinic Judaism, or became an insular sub-sect like the Manicheans or Mandaeans.

Either way, it was Paul who made the group a blockbuster around the Mediterranean and it was the Church Fathers taking his lead that made it into a monster. You can argue that if it wasn't Paul and his ideas, it would have been another group and another person who promoted their own ideas (Mithras, Isis, Mystery Cults, pre-Christian Gnostics, Dionysus, whatever). Perhaps, but history turned out this way.

But that's much nearer to gnosticism than Pauline Christianity. Gnostics identified the OT god as a kind of demiurge, and the suffering of life is seen as a consequence of either malevolence or ineptitude, whereas the 'true God' revealed in the life of Jesus was thought of as absolutely transcendent.

Pauline Christianity often cites the Genesis verse saying that God 'saw the world as good' (Genesis 1-4) in refutation of Gnosticism. As to why there is evil and suffering, Pauline Christianity has plausible theodicies, for instance John Hick's influential Evil and the God of Love. — Quixodian

I think Paul was a sort of pseudo-Gnostic. That is to say, he tried to have it both ways. Like Gnostics he had "hidden knowledge" and was a "revealer" of the true nature of Jesus (now THE CHRIST). Mosaic Law / religious practice was tied to the material world, where the divine Christ was seen as a higher truth and one was expunged for the other.

Philosophy used to be under the aegis of religion, now it has become secular, which really just amounts to becoming concerned with this world rather than some imagined afterlife. This is in general how modern Western civilization has gone too, and the changes in philosopher approaches reflect that. We cannot project ourselves back into the philosophical shoes of the medieval and the ancients, to attempt that would be anachronistic. — Janus

In a history of philosophy way, if we want to be holistic about it, it is important to see how the ideas of a time period shaped the ideas of Western culture up to our very day.

But also, there is a philosophy of religion section in academia, and in this forum. Thus, fair game to discuss, dissect, and analyze. There are ideas that can come out of it that can be worth debating.

The thing is, much of Western philosophy is based on esoteric or religious foundations. Even ancient Greek philosophy, often has esoteric metaphysics at its foundation. Even "revelation". You can say it is part and parcel of the Greek religious ideology. Look at Parmenides. He is one of the great pre-Socratic philosophers, and his philosophy is basically a poetic theological revelation on the idea of oneness. Even his logical proofs are basically religious. Same goes for Pythagoras, Plato himself, Plotinus, not to mention almost all the Medieval scholastics. In fact, it really isn't until Hume, and then again in the late 19th early 20th century that you have a thoroughly non-metaphysical philosophy that just focuses on logic, philosophy of language problems, philosophy of science, and more discrete disciplines meant to accompany science at the exclusion of any speculative thinking.

Here is a great little lecture on the esoteric nature of Parmenides.

For what it's worth, I wrote this in another thread, but think this fits here too actually:

No I get it. You are trying to say that it is an odd "proof" to say that God wants us to use our free will to know him so that we can fulfill his plan in light of other Biblical characters such as Jonah, etc. who "knew" he existed but didn't follow him.

Just stepping back a bit. I'll be the "devil's advocate" for a minute (no pun intended).

In ancient Jewish/Israelite religion God seems very transactional. He won't wipe your city out if you do as he says and worship him alone. He will allow you and your nation to be prosperous if you follow his commandments properly. He won't blot you out of existence when you die (return/resurrect in the World to Come) if you only do the proscribed commandments with fidelity.

This was basically how most ancient gods of the Bronze and Iron Age worked. You do the right rituals and procedures, and the god rewards you. Israelite religion had its own interesting spin and story with Moses, though as with all ancient stories, had pastiche from nearby civilizations (Egypt and Babylon) though not to deny that there were unique "Israelite" qualities to their historical narrative of their nation's founding.

However, as Judaism came into contact with Greco-Roman demands for proper reasoning behind various worship, religion became a lot more complicated. It wasn't enough to just have the tradition, but it was important to understand "deeper implications". So the reason you followed Mosaic Law was because not only is transactional but because it allows the participant to be closer to the godhead. That is to say, each practitioner is playing their part in the divine plan by following the commandments of Mosaic Law. So, using your free will to follow commandments became necessary to curry the fulfillment of God's divine plan. With the ancient lineage of kings being a very remote possibility as time went forward, the idea was not only to restore Israel to its rightful kingship under a Davidic king again (the Messiah), but that God was going to fulfill his ultimate vision. History would get to a point where God would dwell on earth similar to as in heaven. And because these are humans making up the stories, there will be a time when those who followed the Mosaic Laws get to resurrect and dwell in the World to Come and live in God's open presence and not just hidden anymore.

Now of course, why this whole scheme is made up in the first place, seems a bit odd. But I guess those who truly believe in it, don't question the reason other than this is what God wants. He has a plan, and he's carrying it out. The plan itself is not questioned.

So with Christianity, you have the character of Paul in his epistles that does question this plan. See, Paul had a new idea, that was probably influenced by Platonic and general Greco-Roman philosophy around the idea of a demiurge (which is really the foundation of Gnosticism/gnostic ideas). The demiurge is a creator of some sort, but he is a sort of evil one that creates the world in a way that is flawed because the deity himself is capricious and flawed in some way. However, there is the Universal One or the God of Light who is above and beyond all creation that is the real deal God. And he is all Good. But you see this Good God, would then have to be inept or indifferent!

So whereas in the Judaic conception you have a God where the flaws are substantiated in the deity (this is just his plan, and he is carrying it out.. who cares if the plan itself involves suffering.. we just don't question it. He likes things like punishment and rewards .. and we are just his participants in that).. In the Pauline (Christian) idea, God is like the gnostic version of The Good who is never "flawed" (never causes or wants suffering), but you see the demiurge (the LAW in Paul is now a standin for the demiurge) is keeping the people down and so the death/resurrection of some dying god (Jesus who is just rehashed mystery cults that Paul seems to integrate into Judaic thought) becomes the way that atones. The Law was a sort of false start and the real law is from The Good who provides you the real deal compassion (except somehow later on, the idea of Hell being eternal and for those who don't believe in Jesus makes it even more transactional than before, but let's not look at the plotholes for now).

So Pauline Christianity (most of mainstream Christianity) is based on gnostic notions of a true god beyond the demiurgic/lower god of the physical suffering world. So the god of the "Old Testament" while the same god, is really preparing for his compassionate path to salvation. So for whatever reason, he created this world so he can save us from this world.. Which makes absolutely no sense. At least in the original Jewish version, it was simply "the plan man". In the Pauline version the plan becomes about saving people from his plan. Which is so very odd.

Either way, my point is why is this the plan though? Why are we all playing this out in some game of "did you do the thing the way you were supposed to?" It seems like a very human kind of thing to want to see play out. But I guess we are made in his image... he he likes to see people punished and rewarded? And if it's about relationship, he's going to be pissed off if you don't want to hang out with him in the way he wants? It's all very oddly childish to me. It's like god is portrayed as a baby who isn't happy when his toys aren't doing the things he planned for them. How oddly weird for a supreme being to be playing "gotcha!". — schopenhauer1

For that we need to look at the few primal cultures still around and at animal, particularly primate, behavior in order to get an idea of what is predominately culturally determined and what is not. Of course, the other aspect of this question is as to whether it really matters very much, and whether it is not a distraction from what does matter. — Janus

To be fair, I don't really care either way too. I'm just providing an alternative to the EP assumptions. To me, it just seems too simplistic. It's the inherent problem of studying our own behavior. Are we reading "if/then" into things because it makes sense in other animals? We want to find those determined factors but it seems like it might be straining.

I suspect your underlying motivation for wanting to believe that sexuality is entirely culturally conditioned is your attachment to anti-natalism. In a couple of ways I'm a kind of anti-natalist myself: firstly, for myself I never wanted nor had (as far as I know) children, and secondly, I think overpopulation is a huge component of the problems we currently face, so I would encourage people not to reproduce, but to adopt children from the less prosperous regions, for that reason. But, that a whole other can of worms. — Janus

I mean we discount a lot of reasons for our motivation. Can sexuality be a case where we "overlay" on top of non-biological reasons, biological reasons so that we can have a narrative?

There are a ton of reasons we do things that other animals might not. Boredom is a big one for us. You have something that is pleasurable and you have a stressful day.. You can do a bunch of things to make the day "worth it". Sex might be one of them amongst a whole bunch of other things. Is that evolution at work? I guess in the fact that something is pleasurable. But the drive to seek out and have sex, that again, that all could be cultural edifice. Mating strategies could be self-reinforcing.

It's like you see mating strategies in birds and mammals and you say, "We are mammals, so therefore we must have mating strategies like the other animals." But no, our whole way of life is very different, not just in degree even. We are very much a culturally-driven species. There is our big niche. But being culturally driven in such a large way changes many things. One of these changes may be that we have a sort strategy that can mimic (superficially mind you) other animals, and since we can make analogies pretty easily, we look for those similarities and then say, "Look, see this behavior is like that behavior."

That's generally part of the belief system of the person who claims "the greatest trick the Devil pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." To be clear, I'm not arguing that this God exists — GRWelsh

No I get it. You are trying to say that it is an odd "proof" to say that God wants us to use our free will to know him so that we can fulfill his plan in light of other Biblical characters such as Jonah, etc. who "knew" he existed but didn't follow him.

Just stepping back a bit. I'll be the "devil's advocate" for a minute (no pun intended).

In ancient Jewish/Israelite religion God seems very transactional. He won't wipe your city out if you do as he says and worship him alone. He will allow you and your nation to be prosperous if you follow his commandments properly. He won't blot you out of existence when you die (return/resurrect in the World to Come) if you only do the proscribed commandments with fidelity.

This was basically how most ancient gods of the Bronze and Iron Age worked. You do the right rituals and procedures, and the god rewards you. Israelite religion had its own interesting spin and story with Moses, though as with all ancient stories, had pastiche from nearby civilizations (Egypt and Babylon) though not to deny that there were unique "Israelite" qualities to their historical narrative of their nation's founding.

However, as Judaism came into contact with Greco-Roman demands for proper reasoning behind various worship, religion became a lot more complicated. It wasn't enough to just have the tradition, but it was important to understand "deeper implications". So the reason you followed Mosaic Law was because not only is transactional but because it allows the participant to be closer to the godhead. That is to say, each practitioner is playing their part in the divine plan by following the commandments of Mosaic Law. So, using your free will to follow commandments became necessary to curry the fulfillment of God's divine plan. With the ancient lineage of kings being a very remote possibility as time went forward, the idea was not only to restore Israel to its rightful kingship under a Davidic king again (the Messiah), but that God was going to fulfill his ultimate vision. History would get to a point where God would dwell on earth similar to as in heaven. And because these are humans making up the stories, there will be a time when those who followed the Mosaic Laws get to resurrect and dwell in the World to Come and live in God's open presence and not just hidden anymore.

Now of course, why this whole scheme is made up in the first place, seems a bit odd. But I guess those who truly believe in it, don't question the reason other than this is what God wants. He has a plan, and he's carrying it out. The plan itself is not questioned.

So with Christianity, you have the character of Paul in his epistles that does question this plan. See, Paul had a new idea, that was probably influenced by Platonic and general Greco-Roman philosophy around the idea of a demiurge (which is really the foundation of Gnosticism/gnostic ideas). The demiurge is a creator of some sort, but he is a sort of evil one that creates the world in a way that is flawed because the deity himself is capricious and flawed in some way. However, there is the Universal One or the God of Light who is above and beyond all creation that is the real deal God. And he is all Good. But you see this Good God, would then have to be inept or indifferent!

So whereas in the Judaic conception you have a God where the flaws are substantiated in the deity (this is just his plan, and he is carrying it out.. who cares if the plan itself involves suffering.. we just don't question it. He likes things like punishment and rewards .. and we are just his participants in that).. In the Pauline (Christian) idea, God is like the gnostic version of The Good who is never "flawed" (never causes or wants suffering), but you see the demiurge (the LAW in Paul is now a standin for the demiurge) is keeping the people down and so the death/resurrection of some dying god (Jesus who is just rehashed mystery cults that Paul seems to integrate into Judaic thought) becomes the way that atones. The Law was a sort of false start and the real law is from The Good who provides you the real deal compassion (except somehow later on, the idea of Hell being eternal and for those who don't believe in Jesus makes it even more transactional than before, but let's not look at the plotholes for now).

So Pauline Christianity (most of mainstream Christianity) is based on gnostic notions of a true god beyond the demiurgic/lower god of the physical suffering world. So the god of the "Old Testament" while the same god, is really preparing for his compassionate path to salvation. So for whatever reason, he created this world so he can save us from this world.. Which makes absolutely no sense. At least in the original Jewish version, it was simply "the plan man". In the Pauline version the plan becomes about saving people from his plan. Which is so very odd.

Either way, my point is why is this the plan though? Why are we all playing this out in some game of "did you do the thing the way you were supposed to?" It seems like a very human kind of thing to want to see play out. But I guess we are made in his image... he he likes to see people punished and rewarded? And if it's about relationship, he's going to be pissed off if you don't want to hang out with him in the way he wants? It's all very oddly childish to me. It's like god is portrayed as a baby who isn't happy when his toys aren't doing the things he planned for them. How oddly weird for a supreme being to be playing "gotcha!".

Yes, of course, and obviously culture plays a huge rule in the range of behavior open to us as acting on those desires. But I think of culture primarily as channeling desire, controlling it, leveraging its existence for other purposes (selling things!), and so on. I'm not at all sure culture can reach deep enough to be a source of desire itself, directing your attention without your permission, quickening your pulse, releasing hormones. Your body has its own ideas about who you ought to be interested in right now and why, and I don't think culture is nearly so powerful or reaches so deep into your physiology.
@Janus

As I've said, I think the big lesson of the last hundred and fifty years is that we're apes that wear clothes. — Srap Tasmaner

But you are steeped in these tropes from the beginning! Functionally speaking, it all results the same. Who is to say what you might be attracted to "naturally". Maybe there is a baseline, but cross-cultural studies are always going to have the problem that is in the name itself, it's studying people ALREADY steeped within a culture. Not only this, but some of this stuff is truly subjective. "Dominant" means people like them? That they are loud? That they are prone to fight? That they take charge? You can start making lists, but then that just becomes arbitrarily picking things out. Who determines who is dominant and how? And no, this isn't "self-evident". It is human-made categorization that fits assumptions that then fits conclusions.

The problem is, we have very little we can test for adult behaviors that are not already pre-determined culturally. Because by the time you test someone, they are already in the culture. And to say, "But if ALL cultures do this". That still only proves that there is cultural value in various behaviors that are preserved. That doesn't mean necessarily that something is genetically/biologically driven beyond culturo-social learning. For sure, cultural mechanisms are working on more basic biological mechanisms, but in that case, the whole conversation is moot because we are not arguing whether things like concepts and brains and complex behaviors aren't correlated with physical substrates, but rather the nature of how "if/then" the biological "programming" is driving the behavior from socio-cultural elements.

@Srap Tasmaner
Eek, that article is EXACTLY the kind of EP I am talking about. And of course becomes a self-reinforcing feedback loop. Cringey.

The picture gets more complicated because some evolutionary psychologists, including Steve Gangestad, Martie Haselton, and their colleagues, have presented evidence that women might not only increase their sexual desire during ovulation, but might sometimes direct those desires toward men other than their current partners. They theorize that this is especially true for women whose current partners are not highly physically attractive, dominant, and muscular (these traits are taken to be signals of good genes, in the peacock style). — psychologytoday

You know @apokrisis pet project is all about ontology being a triadic semiotic relationship also called pansemiotics. So a logical structure of information being the basis is popular amongst various scientific groups.

Whitehead comes to mind.

In conclusion: you can't have it both ways. — GRWelsh

Some posters don’t like my use of my reference to Socrates here so I’ll just say it’s inspired by his idea of “is it good because the gods will it or do the gods will it because it’s good”? You presume if there’s a deity, that this deity A) has a sense of morality like humans B) that he abides by a morality that is recognizable to humans.

For A, is there really evidence if this? Look at the world. There is immense negatives of suffering, fighting, displeasure. IF that was part of his plan, how is this justified as moral to create? You can only appeal to the idea of a higher kind of morality that suffering is necessary but then is that moral itself? It seems like gods morality resembles nothing like our our own god is an immensely cruel “dungeon master” creating a suffering stage so he could watch the action unfold like watching a tragic comedy in real time. Either way is problematic for the theist.

It's not "artifice" it's desire. — Janus

Cars aren't in our genes either, but people often desire them, and for various reasons. People desire all sorts of weird and wacky things. Just keep listing things off that are more absurd and arbitrary, that are harder and harder to tie to some "real" desire that the car represents and is somehow genetic (which I am saying it isn't).

Bad analogy...we don't try a whole lot of types of sexual partners and then decide that we like some types and dislike others, as we do with food. — Janus

The analogy isn't that all these types are tried out in both, but that "personal preference" for why something tastes good / is desirable can't really be used to support some genetic theory or at least, is a wash, and doesn't tell us much either way.

There are no "cultural markers" for my taste in women, no "type pattern" as to which women turn me on and which don't. — Janus

By cultural markers, simply desiring at all is in the culture before you were born. Even celibate societies are defined a lot of the time, by what they are not, so it is in the culture as the taboo contra of what is going on in that society. It is not completely "unknown".

Plausibility is the whole issue since we cannot know for certain, obviously. But everything we know about animal sexuality and the endocrinal and social nature of human sexuality makes it overwhelmingly plausible, in my view, that human sexuality has always been basically instinctive, with obvious socio-cultural overlays. — Janus

It's still innate and biological. It's not like there's a problem of mutual exclusivity here... is there?

What am I missing? — creativesoul

No one disputes that the physical pleasure aspect is biological. I guess let's step back. What are we going to define as biological versus cultural? Any physical act has a physiological aspect to it. But that's not what we mean here. We are looking at the artifice whereby one directs their sexual energy towards another person.

Well, anything can become fetishized. A naked body alone, doesn't make something attractive to someone. Obviously, in tribal societies, this proves itself so. It's just seen as perfectly normal daily life to be naked in those societies, and that is not sexual. So what I'm saying is it's an idea before anything else. There are individual preferences, but that doesn't speak to it being "inbuilt" any more than someone's proclivity for vanilla versus chocolate is. And even if it is, that would be pretty hard to prove what genetic artifice is making it so. Meaning, It would be hard to prove in some sort of "prediction" for what someone will like better. In fact, children who might like vanilla whilst young might go for the edgier chocolate when older. Etc. Palates change with experience and context.

So attraction, and being turned on by something does indeed happen, but it's hard to extricate it from cultural markers. Is it that sexiness is a definite thing, or is sexiness generated and then made as if it is an innate thing? Notice, that functionally speaking you get similar results.

Sometimes the narrative becomes the reality. In fact, in humans it is largely how we get by.

Your viewpoint is one-dimensional if you deny that there is a basic instinctive, biological other-oriented aspect of human sexuality. Do you deny that?

I don't deny there are cultural overlays; it's not a matter of "either/or". — Janus

My first part of the response stands, that it is almost impossible to tell without an experiment such as one where an isolated group of humans grows up without any prior knowledge of sexuality. So, you'd have to see how that turns out.

However, it would not seem implausible, indeed, possibly very likely, that other-oriented sexuality is largely (maybe almost fully) from encouragement from learned experience. Pleasure is not in question. That is clearly something that is physiological. How it is directed is cultural. There may be a case of "independent learning" over and over. But generally, our brains are wired to pick up information quickly from our environment and then integrate it as if it was habit.

It would have to be a serious emergency to go to the bathroom anywhere other than a toilet in "civilized" society (not camping or living remote location). That is to say, you were trained that bodily fluids and waste goes into a certain kind of receptacle. It seems pretty natural at this point. It's so natural that it is basically a habit or "habit of thought" that is a habit in behavior.

And a lot of what we tend to do when analogizing with other animals seems just misguided. Other animals have more if/then routes to reproduction. There has to be a time of year, things like this. You might even try to analogize to what birds do when they see a mating dance or the other bird display colors and objects or whatnot. Although there seems like an element of "discernment' going on. The discernment is more like a computer program where the right inputs were put in place and again, more if/then.

The habit is cultivated to become as if it is if/then, but that's not what's going on. When your shoe lace is untied, eventually you tie it. But that's not because you have a mechanism to tie your shoe inbuilt into you. You have a learning experience early on built into you and it is now habitual.

There is no inbuilt mechanism in humans whereby an erection means that that erection goes into a specific location. It's funny to think about, but it's true. There is no time of the season, no if/then module, no nothing like that. Just very early understanding of the cultural artifice that also gets hard-wired early on.

And every proof you give will probably be ones whereby cultural preferences and exposure was still there (yes very early on!) for that behavior to manifest that way. We are not "reinventing the wheel" over and over by ideas of attraction, romance, courting, love, etc. It is also conceptual because we cannot but help but parse the world conceptually. And that is indeed socio-cultural.