Interesting thread! — Agustino

Thanks.

First let's establish what emergence is from a metaphysical point of view. It's not as simple as saying that a phenomenon suddenly starts happening that never happened before. That still entails something coming from nothing and seems quite incoherent. So how do you conceptualize emergence?

But I would probably agree with you that I cannot see the mental emerging from the physical (whatever that is supposed to mean). — Agustino

See response to JupiterJess for emergentism.

You really only have to accept abstract functional states can also have phenomenal identity. — JupiterJess

You would have to explain this in order for me to talk more definitively on this.

I'll just accept the almighty Wikipedia's stance on emergence for now:

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence is a phenomenon whereby larger entities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities such that the larger entities exhibit properties the smaller/simpler entities do not exhibit.

Emergence is central in theories of integrative levels and of complex systems. For instance, the phenomenon of life as studied in biology is an emergent property of chemistry, and psychological phenomena emerge from the neurobiological phenomena of living things.

In philosophy, theories that emphasize emergent properties have been called emergentism. Almost all accounts of emergentism include a form of epistemic or ontological irreducibility to the lower levels.[1]

If you think of mental and physical as belonging to the same ontological category, then there is nothing strange about the idea of the relationship of emergence holding between them. If you frame these two concepts as belonging to radically different categories, then of course the idea of emergence will be incoherent. — SophistiCat

Correct, so I guess the claim is they are two radically different categories then, and that the former theory of ontological sameness is itself incorrect based on its radical difference that cannot be explained by heaping on yet more physical theories.

I personally do believe it be materialism. We didn't know quarks were a thing a few years ago. And a few years from now we might discover more about the reasoning behind mental events such as they are actually constituted in reality through physical events. — Frank Barroso

This is the huge unwarranted "chasm" @darthbarracuda was talking about. It is incoherent for mental events to simply "be" in relation to physical events- they are two radically different things. EVERYTHING else is an object until we get to mental events.

The more I study philosophy of mind and phenomenology the more I'm amazed materialism is as popular as it is. It's pretty obvious my mind, my experiences, my intentional, propositional, qualitative states, are not identical nor reducible to a neurological tissue state as it exists as a neurological tissue state. — darthbarracuda

Yes, I agree. I am not sure if it is a lack of understanding of the problem, evasion, or what, but this essential basic problem seems to be either missed, ignored, or denied it seems.

It is far more likely, given what we know from the self-evident and obvious, that the mind and the body are separate, or, as I see it, that the mind has definitive priority over the body in the sense that the world is intrinsically "minded" rather than intrinsically an unconscious lump of "material". — darthbarracuda

That seems to be the uncomfortable conclusion- a sort of panpsychism. I don't even like the conclusion. It's not like I rather have it that way. To me, a more elegant theory would be purely materialistic, but it doesn't seem like the two categories are ever really merged without some very sophisticated panpscyhist theory of sorts. Also, panpsychism does not have to be brute mental events, it can be as sophisticated in its dynamics and process, but the experiential point of view is at least in the mix and accounted for. Thihs is related to the idea that it is incoherent for mental states to"arise" (or be related to) physical states as what is arising and what is arising in, is not accounted for, but simply comes on the scene through magical fiat (i.e. and so it just "is" when these such and such events are correlated).

In my head your question only goes two ways.
Either all experience is physical
or
Everything is 'experience' and our reality is simply God's experience. — Frank Barroso

Hmm, I'm not sure why God has to be in the picture here. Are you equating mental events with God? How about rephrase it "Everything is 'experience' and our reality is simply experience."?

Folks still gender objects in terms of stereotyped or personal associations.

If we are sorting guns and flowers into gendered categories, where do we put them?

Raw categorizing in terms of belonging to male or female is expected. — Nils Loc

Can we prove that is actually how the process got started? I would agree this seems a plausible theory, I'm just wondering if any anthropologists, linguists, or language historians have some in-depth theories on this.

Also, why gender non-gendered objects anyways? That seems like an odd way to relate to the world. I don't even get why non-scientific societies would think in those terms. Language does not have to have gendered words, but some do, and it became the convention. So odd.

I had an example of heat transfer but really all it says is that mental events are just a series of physical events inside you. Your attributing a disconnect there that really isn't. Or you made A=B when its still A under all the assumptions. — Frank Barroso

Yeah, I don't really think the whole "mental events are just physical events inside you" is saying very much except redescribing what mental events are in a non-standard way.

Well, what does it mean to advocate if not to make others believe as you do? — Harry Hindu

Is that wrong to advocate for something? Convincing people is part of living in a society with others. You affect people, people affect you. Changing how people affect one another through advocacy seems appropriate in this condition that we live in.

That's ironic. The very thing that you want to eliminate would be the answer to your question of "What are we doing here day after day after day? — Harry Hindu

Well, it wasn't meant to be rhetorical. The answer is absurd instrumentality, as I see it. Doing to do to do to do. We work to maintain ourselves in our situated setting. Why? Because it is part of the enculturation process for surviving. Why? Usually hunger, bodily discomfort, and exposure are not desirable (not dying). We also don't like discomfort (bad smells, unclean things, being impinged upon, annoyances of all varieties). We also don't like languishing with no entertainment. Thus I have always maintained life itself is structured such that most humans are motivated by survival, discomfort, and boredom. Thus, all the secondary goals that branch outward from these foundational motivations seem like the actual cause for actions, but it is more basic than that. All the secondary goals with the extremely nuanced branches that branch out of those branches are coming from the three basic human drives (survival, get more comfortable, get less bored). This can be questioned, but I will try to analyze the argument and see if it indeed does fit into this framework, and see if the rebuttal is missing something or overlooking something.

We are here to procreate, and I don't mean that in simply passing down one's own genes. We are all here - even those that don't have any kids themselves - to ensure the next generation can run things in our absence and then pass the torch down to each following generation. We all share genes from the same gene pool and each do our own job in ensuring in some way that the next generation is able to keep things running (childless teachers and coaches, couples who can't have kids that adopt, gays that adopt, etc.). — Harry Hindu

I don't see why the human project needs to be carried forth. You are presuming that there needs to be some sort of production going on- that humans must produce something or experiences have to be experienced by someone. I don't see why. If you want to start getting into the whole "people need to exist to know people should not exist" I must admit I don't know how to answer that question that in order to know existence needs not be, I need to exist. It's that whole "If a tree falls in the woods and there's no one there to hear it thing". The subject/object relationship is always a tricky issue. However, my main point is that creating more creatures that will simply have to be enculturated to survive, entertain themselves, and get more comfortable (the three motivators behind actions) does not compute in the light of the fact that nothing needs to be produced or experienced. It is absurd in the grandest sense.

I don't get that part that's underlined. I can't attempt to answer a point that I don't understand. — Harry Hindu

Well, I was trying to address the claim that the reason challenges are good is that overcoming them makes someone (somehow) better. Why someone needs to be exposed to challenges (by being born) in the first place (to somehow make them "better") is still not addressed, and I don't think it legitimately can without simply saying that people have a preference to see other people go through the challenges for living. Also, the challenges being met, what does this prove? Again, there is nothing that needs to be produced or experienced by anyone. It is all absurd- there is no necessity for the human experience to be continued or experienced by yet another person. It is all running around to survive, entertain, get more comfortable.

I wonder if you can speak to the idea that I had that emergence only works from physical to physical events. I see emergence as incoherent from physical to mental events. Do you have anything to say to that?

I still don't understand the intent behind these threads, seeing as they all turn out the same. — Thorongil

I will no longer engage in them. Enjoy the forums.

I do, though. It's just we're not really discussing it, and I don't understand the desire to avoid actually having an argument. I say let's have one, instead of these bizarre, cryptic little dances around the topic. — Thorongil

But we have, specifically in a very long thread before this. I think we explained our positions pretty fully there and the conclusions are there to refer back to if need be. Even if you disagree, I don't appreciate the idea that what I'm saying is rhetorical or that I am trying to avoid trying to defend anti-natalism. I may understand it from another poster, but unless you are another Thorongil, you have seen a lot of my posts where I did this at length. So it is a bit insulting and I can only fathom you are trying to simply get me to stop posting about the topic, so I am obliging and standing down on it. I get that it is hard to remember what was said in the past, so I advise to may read from our last discussion if you are going to call the question of absurdity and structural suffering simply rhetorical. I don't know how it can be when rhetorical usually means it is not meant to have a definitive answer, when I in fact do provide some ideas and answers. If others don't see it the same way, then I argue my point by describing more clearly what I am talking about. It is hard to convey certain concepts like absurdity into words, but I try to paint a picture. If people still don't get it, or understand it, so be it, but I do like to hear other's opinions on the matter as it is important, as far as I see it.

I don't know what this means. But let me take a stab at it. The first part about an "ethical credo" might mean that you don't think anti-natalism is a normative stance. My reply would be that it clearly is, so that to ignore the tasks of arguing in favor of it and defending it from criticism is to engage in special pleading: "listen to what I say, but don't make me defend myself."

By "contemplating existential questions," you might have in mind the kind of rhetorical questions you asked in the OP. But if that's the case, you're not requesting to explore genuine questions, because rhetorical questions answer themselves. This would mean that "contemplating existential questions" can only lead to a certain set of conclusions: those you hold to.

Please clarify if you'd like. — Thorongil

I get it buddy. You don't like the topic.

@Thorongil @Agustino @Ciceronianus the White

Since you all missed my point about how it is not as much about the ethical credo as it is a jumping off point about contemplating existential questions, I will do as you all seem to agree on, and not discuss it further. Carry on.

It seems to me that the ultimate question you are asking is: Should schopenhauer1 have the right to prevent others from having kids simply because his life is full of suffering? Well, should you? I consider the question of rights and who has more rights than someone else a question with an objective answer that doesn't have to do with ethics. Who has more rights than anyone else? My answer is no one. We all have equal rights, which means you don't have the right to tell me how to live my life, nor do you have the right to prevent others from having a life, because yours is bad. — Harry Hindu

I am not saying we should force the prevention of procreation. It is simply an argument that one can agree or disagree with. I liken it to vegans who advocate for their cause but do not ram it down people's throats or force it into law or anything like that. Also, as I've stated earlier, I don't see the issues of procreation simply as an ethical credo but as a way to understand what we are doing here in the first place. So it is more of a jumping off point for seeing a certain aesthetic understanding of the human condition. What are we doing here day after day after day? I already stated the usual suspects of what people use to justify why existence is in a way "necessary" or "justified" for a new human, but really human existence is a lot of needs and wants (for survival and boredom's sake) in a cultural context. There is an instrumental nature to existence, an absurd repetitiousness, and the need to overcome burdens and challenges seems a bit trite and pat to be an appropriate answer for why people need to be born to experience the challenges in the first place. Something needs to exist to overcome challenges to feel good for overcoming them when nothing needed to exist at all, though glib-sounding, still has to be grappled with. I believe the answer to that conundrum is trickier than most people believe at first reflexive response.

As to (1), true, things are not deterministically set—either biologically or behaviorally. Yet just as the kids’ phenotypes are on average a mixture of the parents’ phenotypes, so too can be argued for the kids’ behaviors, including their sense of ethics, when both parents have been around. What I’m upholding is that the kid’s behavior will not itself be random but will be in great part learned from the parent(s)’ behavior. So if the parents desire less suffering in the world, given that they are good parents by common sense standards, so too will their children. Exceptions could of course occur. But this argument is about average outcomes. — javra

I have a few objections. I just don't put too much stock in the outcome. I do encourage good parenting, and think it will lead to better outcomes, but I don't think it would be a high enough outcome. Also, I don't see how good parenting or providing a good moral framework leads to less suffering. I think suffering is structural (baked in) and contingent suffering (suffering that is from circumstances) is too nuanced that moral parenting does not solve it. What does prevent it is preventing birth. Also, I don't think you can out procreate the "badness" out of society. That is its own topic I guess.

As to (2), I very much acknowledge that this position is hard knocks. All the same, if one cares about suffering in the world among humans and lives one’s life thus, then the absence of this person to humanity only increases the suffering in humanity relative to this person’s being otherwise present—this for reasons aforementioned. E.g. where this person would smile at a homeless kid, a non-caring person would not show any kindness toward the same homeless kid; and without the caring person the same homeless kid would receive less compassion and would therefore experience greater suffering. Do you deem this overall reasoning valid or erroneous?

I’ll try to address “the people as means toward ends” issue after this one issue is first addressed—since the former issue is contingent upon the latter issue being valid as here expressed. — javra

Although I sympathize with promoting good parenting whenever possible, suffering exists for the new human, and I am not a kind of utilitarian where the overall total welfare is the only thing that matters. Rather, I see it that a whole new life that now has to deal with the challenges of life and being a self-reflecting human is born where it could have been prevented. It now suffers even if it was perhaps going to be more "good" than the next guy.

I agree with your statement as quoted above; and the fact that we can't "know what the hell we are doing here in the first place", in the kind of shareable discursive sense you are demanding, is the very fact that makes the value of life incalculable in any intersubjective unbiased way. — Janus

But we are here and can bring more people here. What is it that makes here something so necessary that some new person needs to experience it? What of the absurdity of the repetitious nature of what is essentially the same phenomena done over and over? I already mentioned the top main "positive" goods of life, but do these goods need to be carried forward? Is there not an emptiness at the bottom of all endeavors? What of the restlessness of our demanding natures for survival and entertainment?

I am well familiar with all the kinds of arguments you cited from other threads. the problem is, none of them are compelling to anyone who doesn't empathize with your feeling about life. — Janus

As I stated: So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences.

Aren't you? Anti-natalism seems uninterested in other people, it just seems to want to tell the majority of other people that in one fundamental respect they are mistaken in how they value life, procreation and sexual pleasure: it feels more of a lecture than an analysis. Surely if you want to spread the word, you need to enquire a little more into how other people are? That's certainly how politics is done, for instance: tramping round streets, knocking on doors, listening to people's concerns, explaining your views to them. — mcdoodle

I am interested, hence a forum rather than a journal. So why put more people into the world? What is gained? Are you familiar with my position? It is not all just contingent suffering (the usual harms people think about when discussing suffering). The idea is perhaps too subtle to be effective, I agree. Relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement (or some variation thereof) seem to be the considerations that people choose. Then a defense of suffering based on some variation of Nietzsche's idea of "suffering makes life interesting" as this makes everyone's life its own unique "work of art". Ideas of absurdity, structural, or contingent suffering are not considered and the relative goodness of relationships, pleasure, being absorbed in physical/mental activities, aesthetics, learning, and achievement are never examined as to whether individuals need to carry these experiences out qua individuals who live and have the opportunities for these positive experiences.

Edit: I know I'm missing some details in terms of logics; still, how does this stand as an overall argument? — javra

Well, let's see:

P3: If all people who desire reduced suffering in the world (including antinatalists) were to no longer exist, then the world would become fully populated by people that increase suffering in the world—this either due to lack of care or due to willful intent. — javra

This is a bit suspect to me for several reasons. 1) You are assuming future people will reduce suffering in the same way as the parents. Offspring may be nothing like their parents. 2) Using future people in order to decrease some overall suffering seems to not be in the spirit of the moral stance to not use people for a means to an ends. You create a life with suffering in order to reduce some total suffering.

For others, life is worth living and worth bringing in others to share it. Whose to say that you are right and they are wrong and that you get to determine their choices in having kids or not? Doesn't it really come down to the kind of life each individual lives with some having more suffering than others, and where some individuals are incapable of coping with reality? There is no objective rule or law that says life really is or isn't worth living. It is up to the individual. So I don't see a point in continuing this conversation, or why you keep bringing it up. If you have made that decision, then good for you. It is obvious that others disagree. — Harry Hindu

So the same can be said about arguments on the limits of ethics- abortion, eating animals or animal by-products, assisted suicide, etc. These are things which are also argued about, but somehow are considered legitimate topics of consideration, why would procreation not also be in this category of a legitimate moral argument as the other things mentioned? Why is this one off limits but others not? Again, this is another way to shut down any thought on it before it enters the world of debate to begin with.

No, it's not so much the question that's juvenile. It's the attitude or thoght process associated with reaching a negative conclusion. Is it juvenile to angrily exclaim, "I didn't ask to be born!", when being scolded by a parent? I've seen that here disguised as something more sophisticated. — Sapientia

Well, this is not an "in the moment" exclamation because somebody didn't let me do something I wanted to. That would be juvenile in a sense, but the topic of why we continue to exist and allowing for serious consideration of why we bring future people into the world, is actually a very relevant and serious topic. Indeed, why we do what we do everyday, how we often shut off our self-reflective capabilities because of routine and habit, and how we limit the sphere of discourse to what seems to be acceptable in "polite" civil society keeps us from the foundational questions of existential questioning.

Spreadsheets, concrete load values, the ATP cell cycle, revenue cycles, financial statements, and the like are considered adult because it is involved with secondary goals related to survival in a very roundabout way (advanced, industrial, economic system and specialization), but they are intra-worldly events. The very foundation is what we doing in the first place, should be explored. Well, if survival and finding ways to not be bored are the root of it, we have to explore that. If you do not think that is what we are doing, and pleasure-seeking, learning, relationships, self-actualization, flow activities are involved we have to explore that too.

Don't shift this onto me! This is precisely what I was asking you! — Thorongil

Abductive reasoning? Does it effectively change the subject? Does it prevent people from asking difficult questions? Perhaps this was picked up as effective in disarming the question?

As I said earlier: Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints.

Sure, but like all "aesthetic pictures" it is subjective, and there are no resources within it with which to form an argument that could be compelling in an intersubjective context. — Janus

Sure there is, but I am not bringing it up on this thread because I literally have dozens on this topic where I do just that. If you want, I can reference them for you. The evaluation of life itself can be debated like any other aesthetic or ethical value. It is all debatable, some are more specific (e.g. should I do this specific act) than others (how is existence itself evaluated).

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1800/ever-vigilant-existence#Item_142

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1701/uncanny-absurdity#Item_5

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1550/forcing-people-into-obligations-by-procreating-them-is-wrong#Item_106

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1437/life-is-a-pain-in-the-ass#Item_84

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1495/what-are-we-trying-to-accomplish-really-inauthentic-decisions-and-the-like#Item_85

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1361/is-it-a-tragedy-if-no-new-person-experiences-the-goods-of-life#Item_22

Can you explain a bit more; it's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. — Janus

All issues are wrapped up in existential ones of what the hell we are doing here in the first place.

I'm uncertain how the existence of future people can be continued. — Ciceronianus the White

A specific person may not be identified, but the counterfactual of not procreating is no future person will exist where there could have been. Not sure why you think this is an abuse of language to think in future tenses and potential consequences from actions. Too literal perhaps?

Population control wouldn't be a juvenile topic, I beleive, but I don't think that entails acceptance of the view that reproduction, in itself, is in all cases immoral. — Ciceronianus the White

Immoral is a loaded term. Parents aren't nefarious people like cold-blooded killers or sociopaths. Generally, I liken it to vegans who don't force their opinion but are not afraid to voice it and make a case for their side.

The question of whether we should reproduce is clearly related to whether life is good on the whole. — t0m

Agreed

"We" filthy life-affirmers can frame the youthful excesses of existential angst as the pain of a second weaning -- of learning to live without the breast-milk of some authoritative justification of life. Hence "juvenile." Or we may frame such excess or life-negativity in terms of an erotic frigidity. Allured by life's voluptuous charms enough to ignore her yellow or even red teeth, it's hard not see a rejection of her in terms of a lack of lust. Is the anti-natalist fully switched-on? — t0m

Not quite sure what you mean by "switched-on". I agree that that age group may be the most existential, but that may be for circumstantial reasons. Funny, how existential thinking is juvenile but religious belief is considered just cultivating a deep longing. I see the two as very related but one without the trappings of metaphysical restraints.

The anti-natalist needs the world as a stage on which to perform his rejection of the world. Of course Schopenhauer lived to a ripe old age with his prostitutes and his books. He slept by a pair of pistols, ready to kill anyone trying to snatch his precious life or property away from him. — t0m

But what is wrong with this? I don't see the contradiction in living life yet rejecting the premises of life itself. Indeed, life is presented to humans as it is already structured, and people can evaluate and analyze the structure and their place in it. If that is "needing the world as a stage", again, what is wrong with that? Suicide is not the only answer to existential questioning.

Where are these dullards who have never contemplated whether life is worth living? You may find some conservatives with a God narrative, but that's not even the rule anymore. "Society" keeps moving forward because most humans individually decide that the game is worth the candle. — t0m

I never said anyone was dullards, just that some people disarm others by throwing the term "juvenile" around to dissuade them from the line of questioning. I am not so sure about individuals "deciding" that the came is worth the candle. Many go through the motions without deciding anything.

The anti-natalist can call them shallow or irrational and they can understand anti-natalism as squeamishness, erotic frigidity, etc., or, in general, as a personal problem/decision vainly projected outward as a universal truth. But then anti-natalism is one voice among so many others condemning life as guilty, ugly, sinful. Both sides can talk about rational justifications, but it's more plausible that some gut-level decisions or just semi-fixed emotional tonalities are involved. — t0m

The point is to grapple with it and keep it at the forefront of thought continually. I think the generic "wisdom" is to think about it for a bit and move on, but it is the core of the issue as our very motivations are the core of what we do, think, plan, etc. Survival/boredom, and absurdity are all wrapped in our very existence as self-reflecting beings.

If you don't want children that is fine, and no one is going to attempt to force you to procreate. — Janus

Perhaps unlike other antinatalists, I don't see antinatalism as simply just refraining from procreating or even advocating it for others, but as a response to the existential conditions of survival/boredom/discomfort/angst at the root of our motivations and contingent suffering of circumstances. It is simply a jumping off point for an aesthetic picture, not simply an ethical credo.

There is no 'calculus' for the worth of life; each person is a unique 'barometer'; it really comes down to individual affect. — Janus

But when the very act of doing anything is related to being in the first place rather than intra-wordly affairs of specific goals and questions is the larger issue going on.

Juvenile in the sense of a tyrant who holds to the power to destroy folks in genocidal acts of war or commit political blunders with grave consequences? — Nils Loc

This is (admittedly) about antinatalism (not procreating future people).

And if they claim to have good reasons for believing that it is, what then? — Thorongil

So are you saying it is? What's your claim that it is or is not?

How are we to know that these are just effective deceptions or misdirections that sophisticated societies have used to disarm the existential question-asker from engaging in questions that would lead to despair?
— schopenhauer1

How are we to know that they're not? — Thorongil

Abductive reasoning? Does it effectively change the subject? Does it prevent people from asking difficult questions? Perhaps this was picked up as effective in disarming the question?

Or it could not be. Making these apparently rhetorical statements doesn't relieve you of the burden of having to justify them. — Thorongil

See above.

Well, that's because it usually is a juvenile inquiry :-O — Agustino

Say you. Nah nah nah pooh pooh

The focus on specialization has to do with the effects of industrialization and maximising the efficiency of individual workers. That's why everyone has to do a fixed thing repeatedly. So obviously all work ends up being very detailed, and not broad ranged. — Agustino

True.

Thanks :D! I cleaned up the post a bit, I think you copied my original one. The Elves fought with the evil Amelakites and Edomites in the Battle of Beleriand in which the Angels were employed from Valinor to help defeat them and their evil king Morgoth. Later the Angels asked the Elves to come back with them to Valinor but some remained behind in Babylonia instead of going back to the Holy Land and established mystical schools which kept the secrets and traditions of the First Age.

Do you think that they would be able to tell the difference between them? — Sir2u

I think they piece it together and Gandalf provides the sacred texts to Moses in the Shire and they go on a great adventure to Egypt where Sauron and his Orcs enslave the Israelites, and save them and lead them to the Lonely Sinai Mountain where Smaug lives. Meanwhile Moses' nephew Mohammad finds some elves and angels and fights Sauron again and brings with him dwarves in the battle of Mirkwood.. The messiah, Aragorn returns and reestablishes a sacred kingdom reuniting the two kingdoms of men and elves or something like that.

Wow. Hold on. The words of the Bible do not change. Do you mean to say that previous interpretations were wrong, or that the interpretations were right for the time? — szardosszemagad

So the document is evolving, without changing... that's not a Darwinist evolution then. What kind of evolution are we talking about? — szardosszemagad

I think you are misinterpreting me.. the parallel there is funny. Easy to misinterpret any text ;).

So I hold a historical-critical approach. What I meant was that both the written text and the application (and interpretations) of the written text evolved over time. So if you were to rewind back to 700s BCE, you would have a possible text that was an amalgam of traditions and mythical texts from the Israelite and Judahite sources. This would resemble to some extent the stories in Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers. If you were to fast forward to the 600s BCE, you would probably see influence from the Cohens/Levites in Leviticus and Deuteronomy written in more or less full form (possibly influencing the previous texts to conform to the later narrative). Then in the 500s-400s BCE, you may have seen the various sources redacted, edited, and added to so that it came in its final form of the Torah we know today- the Five Books of Moses. These books were probably presented in final redacted form by Ezra the Priest who was trying to institute a fully-formed theocratic state under the auspices of the Shah-an-Shah in Persia who ruled over Judah at this time (called the province of Yahad in Persian).

Now, let's also add some more historical understanding. Who were "the prophets" (the neviim in Hebrew)? They were probably guilds of "seers" who were dedicated to the god Yaweh. By the 600s, the main power structure was the King, the Priests, and the Prophets. The prophet guilds sometimes had more influence like in King Hezekiah and King Josiah's time, and around this time, they convinced the power structure to mainly ditch the other gods in favor of the patron god Yaweh. They probably also maintained a moral element in the religion. In other words, they may have aligned the ritualistic aspects with moral aspects such that morality was tied up in Divine Command.

In 586 BCE, Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar conquered Judah and took the elite classes (priests, kings, prophets, etc.) with them, leaving some Jews behind. Again, this is when the "Bible" was redacted and put together. When Ezra came back, he brought with him scribes, priests, and even "prophets" who would help establish a theocratic state of sorts. This council was called the Great Assembly. Just like the Constitution of the US, the Torah in its final form was considered the Law of the land and main source for tribal history. However, they still had to "show" people how to follow it. So they probably had "oral" traditions decided upon by the Great Assembly (like the Supreme Court makes judgements about the written Constitution which is also considered binding law). These oral traditions explained certain rituals, holidays, prayers, and how to follow the text itself. This was supposed to get passed down from priests/scholars/prophets down to the next generation in a game of telephone. It was never thought to be written down. This is what I meant by "pristine" state, because my argument is the religion as it was set up was really put together by this Great Assembly more or less, and thus the original intention of the Torah by Ezra and Great Assembly (just like the original intention of the Constitution) may have had slight variations which harbored more traditions that may not have been in the original or changed the context of the original document to fit new situations (just like the Supreme Court with the Constitution.. The 6th Amendment says right to counsel for defense, but it was Gideon v. Wainright in 1963 that made it mandatory for states to provide a public defender).

You realize, that this would be anathema to Orthodox Jews and Fundamentalist Christians who would say, no the traditions go back to Moses who wrote it down many years earlier (1200 BCE). So, my argument was it was myths, laws and traditions that were redacted and edited over time, with its final form around 400 BCE and was redacted by Ezra and scribes, with certain "unwritten" laws and judgements made by Ezra, scribes, and Great Assembly that itself evolved over time with newer judgements or replacements with older ones, or perhaps changed as the information was transmitted in different ways the original, etc. etc. I hope this answers your question about what I mean that it was an evolving document.

With this approach, you cannot interpret our understand the history or intention of the Bible, without understanding the civilization, the people, the culture, the context, and the history from which it came.

Does that mean that even the knowledgeable, the enlightened, the blessed ones don't agree on what religious texts mean. :s
That sounds just like a person that wants to keep his cushy job trying to convince everyone else that only he can do it because he is the only one that has been taught to read QBasic. — Sir2u

I think it shows the historical nature of the document and its evolution.

Historically, this just proves that the Bible and its interpretations have always been an evolving document. It was stitched together in steps most likely and redacted to a whole unit by the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly period c.400 BCE. Then even after this, how the nuances of ceremony, law, and custom, are to be followed exactly, and the precise meaning of the text itself was highly debatable. Was there ever a "pristine" way of understanding the text? Arguably, those rabbis would suggest that they were trying to nail this down, but clearly there was no way of knowing which tradition was absolutely correct. I believe it was mainly voted on majority opinion or the most respected scholar, or something of that nature.

I guess historically, if there was ever a case as to when the most "pristine" understanding of the Bible's text was had, it would be around the time of Ezra and the Great Assembly around 400s BCE. Ezra (and probably other scribes) were probably the final redactors and compilers of the traditions into a cohesive unit- probably in the attempt to reestablish a more or less Jewish theological state under Nehemiah (the Jewish governor sent to reestablish the district under Artaxerxes). I am sure with this, there was probably certain guidelines set down during Ezra's time, but then questions arose and different traditions or differing opinions came along, and then this evolved into more debates, and none of it was written down, so like a game of telephone it was always trying to get the interpretation right. Not only this, but new situations that were not thought of before arose and they had to be incorporated into the already existing interpretation, etc. etc. The point being it was probably never really pristine, even at its most pristine point but always evolutionary.

For some context you can read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehemiah

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Assembly

But wait, there's more!. What about how to APPLY the words to make it an everyday thing? So the "Oral Torah" (essentially, traditions surrounding the text) arose out of disagreements and ambiguities. See below:

The Mishna was a compendium of Pharisidic tradition of the "Oral" disputes as to how to interpret the law going back to disputes that started at least by 200s BCE, but written down around 190 CE:

MISHNA : Seven days before the Day of Atonement the high-priest is to be removed from his house to the Palhedrin Chamber (παρεδρων), and another high-priest is appointed to substitute him in case he become unfit for the service by becoming unclean. R. Jedudah says another wife is to be appointed for him also, in case his own wife dies, whereas it is said [Lev. xvii. 11], "and shall make atonement for himself and for his house"; "his house"--that is, his wife. But it was objected that in this manner there will be no end to the matter. (The other wife may die too.)

But wait! There's more! What about how to understand what the Mishnaic interpreters said. There was another layer of scholars that tried to properly understand the previous interpreters! This layer is called the Gemara.. AND there's two additions with variations in interpretations! There's a Jerusalem one finished in 400 CE and a Babylonian one finished in 500 CE!

GEMARA: We have learned in a Mishna (Tract Parah, III., 1): "Seven days before the red cow 1 was to be burned, the priest who had to perform this ceremony was removed from his house to the northeastern chamber of the Temple," etc. "Whence do we deduce this?" said R. Miniumi bar Helviah in the name of Mahassia b. Iddi, quoting R. Johanan: "It is written [Lev. viii. 34]: 'As they have done this day, so hath the Lord commanded to do farther, to make an atonement for you.' 'To do farther' signifies the red cow; 'to make an atonement for you', signifies the Day of Atonement." But perhaps it signifies the atonement of sacrifices generally? Could we know, in this case, which priest is going to perform the rite? How, then, could he be removed from his home? But perhaps other festivals are meant? We infer the removal seven days before one day from the removal, seven days (before) for the service of one day, 1 but not seven days (before) for a service of seven days [of the festivals of Passover and of Tabernacles]. Perhaps Pentecost, which also is only one day, is meant? Said R. Abba: "We infer a day of one bull and one ram (when one such is sacrificed) [as on the days of consecration], from a day of one bull and one ram, which is the offering for the Day of Atonement; but for Pentecost two rams are prescribed." Perhaps New Year's Day is meant (which is also only one day)? Said R. Abahu: "We may infer a day of the bull and the ram at the priest's own cost from a day when the priest must act likewise, and that is the Day of Atonement. But on the days of Pentecost and of New Year the bull and ram are at the public cost." R. Ashi, however, said: "We may infer a day on which the bull is a sin-offering, and the ram a burnt-offering (as on the day of consecration and on the Day of Atonement), but on New Year's Day and Pentecost both are burnt-offerings."

.....
MISHNA: During all the seven days he sprinkles the blood [of the daily offerings, to become practised], fumes the incense, trims the lamps, and offers the head and the leg. During all the other days, he sacrifices, if he chooses, since the high-priest offers the first portion as he prefers, and takes for his own use a portion of the first offering.

GEMARA: Who is the Tana who holds so? Said R. Hisda: That is not in accordance with R. Aqiba. For R. Aqiba holds that when a clean man is sprinkled upon, he thereby becomes defiled. And since the high-priest was sprinkled upon all the seven days, how could he perform the service? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: It is written [Num. xix. 19]: "And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean." Infer from this (since unclean is written, not him), that only an unclean person becomes clean; but if a clean person is sprinkled on, he becomes unclean. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. But the sages said: This only applies to things subject to defilement. Abayi, however, said: It may be said, the Mishna can be even in accordance with R. Aqiba; and the case is, the whole day he can perform the service, in the evening he bathes, and when the sun has set, he becomes clean.

But wait, there's more! The Geonim were a group of scholars in 600-1000 CE who made further interpretations of the Mishna/Gemara (Talmud).

But wait, there's more! The Rishonim, people like Maimonides, wrote books like the Mishneh Torah about the previous Talmud tracts and Geonim.. Etc. etc.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0316.htm#29

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0323.htm#27

These passages from Leviticus 16 and Leviticus 23 are pretty straightforward about Yom Kippur.

Not reproducing is one method of reducing suffering -- especially the suffering one can't do anything about. But a lot of suffering is preventable. — Bitter Crank

Does suffering get prevented or just gets more refined? In a time of war, living without being shot might be the most important thing. Perhaps the hurricane was prevented, but what other inevitable harm will come about? Does contingent suffering end or "move up the food chain" to more acute forms? Perhaps it is now other things related to negative experiences, negative preconditions, negative social situations, or a culmination of all of them to create suffering for an individual. What is it about overcoming challenges that we praise? Is it simply a post-hoc coping mechanism, or is this some sort of unstated ethic we need to maintain and propagate? And if we must propagate it, why must future generations be born to overcoming challenges in the first place? Is there a specific reason this principle or is it circular reasoning?

But as a concept, authenticity should not be so casually dismissed.... self actualization is for all, I believe. — Jake Tarragon

Is self-actualizing itself a form of authenticity or buying into what makes "a good person" in an individualistic modern society? That sounds like cultural ideals that have been embodied by the individual- a role if you will, of the self-actualizer.

Whether or not anyone can actually be an overman is a different issue altogether. A better argument here would be to accept Nietzsche's concepts but show they fail to be plausible in real life. People are too decadent, too selfish, too full of shit, too whiny, too weak, too mortal, too wasteful, too stupid, etc for Nietzsche's concepts to have any practical application to reality. The overman, amor fati, eternal return, all of these concepts are great but in the end only go to show how unqualified humans are. — darthbarracuda

It's hard to be an overman with serious mental illness. It's hard to be an overman with ailments and setbacks that can be quite limiting. Sure maybe they can be overcome or integrated at some point, but that is always in retrospect.

Edit: So, it's much easier for the person with less travails to overcome inequities, so there is already an inherent unequal distribution of who becomes an ubermensch and who does not.

So, yeah maybe there is a work of art created, but it's always one step behind the event as its happening. I don't think retrospective Pollyannaising justifies the suffering as it occurred. Besides this idea of pain makes us better more interesting people, there is simply the notion that the happy moments are worth it. For those who see happy moments as just blips of relief amongst a backdrop of mainly contingent and structural suffering, it is not really consolation. What is real is the burdens of living, the burdens of overcoming, the burdens of time, the burdens of repetitiousness. What is temporary is happy moments. Existence is that which is to be dealt with by the individual ego embodied in its historo-cultural environs.

You forgot the "what's the big deal?" reaction. In other words, what's the big deal that people have different lives, some with more pleasurable experiences, others with less, etc.? — Agustino

Because if it is not you having the pleasurable life, then that would clearly suck. But of course, you might point to the writings that people throughout history from Job, Stoics, and Nietzsche have played off suffering as if it's no big deal. Unfortunately, that is literature and one step removed from the situation :’( .

You seem to presume a priori that everyone should have the same life - that's what it seems that you would expect. Otherwise, if that's not the case, it's unequal, and that's bad! — Agustino

No, not the same life in terms of same goals and preferences, just the same in not having to deal with a great deal of undesirable elements of their lives.

Primordial soup

Blame that one on Heinz. — Sir2u

I guess they do own Campbell's. I like that ketchup product of theirs.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup — Sir2u

Oh didn't see the other soup connection, duh.. I was trying to keep up.. couldn't think of too many soup-mythology analogies. Primordial soup?

Makes you want to read Joseph Campbell! — Sir2u

For some critics, Joseph Campbell is as pedestrian as Campbell's soup. Meant for the masses.

The Cohens, Kahns, Cahanes, Levites... these Jewish names are connected to the priestly caste of Israel, and there are genetic similarities linking the various families.

Nothing to do with the price of matzo ball soup, but interesting. — Bitter Crank

>:O . Interesting articles on that:

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01/07/science/finding-genetic-traces-of-jewish-priesthood.html?mcubz=0

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/09/us/dna-backs-a-tribe-s-tradition-of-early-descent-from-the-jews.html?mcubz=0