It is the conviction of being ‘misled’ I would have some qualms with. The fact is such experiences happen (hence my phenomenological approach rather than stating what is or isn’t ‘real’).

Maybe it is merely a … damn! I forget the term … originally an architectural term that referred to spaces between arches that serve no structural purpose yet were used for decoration … my minds gone blank!

Anyway, … Ah! There it is … Spandrel. Maybe it is a Spandrel, and some people suggest that art is a spandrel.

Either way there are benefits to ASC’s. Like with nuclear power we can destroy or create. There is a powerful property to such experiences either way and the main thrust of my point here is that it serves us to investigate. The most commonly reported and featured experiences appear to have been recorded in religious doctrines and I am saying the practices listed seem beyond coincidence in how they align with known triggers for ASC’s.

I don’t understand what truth has to do with a story in the sense you seem to be framing it?

As a little story it is fine. As some comparison to lived experience it leaves a lot to be desired. As I ah e mentioned there is a lack of validity in referring to beings that are literally beyond your comprehension as they are ‘infinite’ and ‘eternal’ (concepts used by humans to express something outside of experiential comprehension).

It does not hold up as a reasonable argument for the existence of said ‘god/s’ if the definition is so abstracted from human experience that it makes it impossible to confirm or deny. What would intrigue me more is what it is that makes you believe in such beings. I cannot imagine infinite or eternal beings any more than I can imagine a square circle, a sound without pitch, a physical object without surfaces or a colour without shade. I can of course ‘make up’ some abstract approximation of each of this but they would all fall short of meeting the said requirements (for example I can imagine a square shape with rounded corners and convince others that it is fine ti call it a ‘square circle’ but in technical terms it would neither be a square or a circle in mathematical terms.

That is just a story you made up.

Well, I would not put it like that exactly. It is more of an expression of human existence. A natural means of dealing with the immediate environment and possible otherness beyond our sense of selfhood.

‘Substance’? I stories have a certain impetus/‘substance’ to them. If you are trying for some kind of dualism I simply do not go into that any more as the phenomenological view on that suffices - as in I don’t care much about ‘the material’ nature of nature just the human lived experience (in the sense of religious practices and the general weltenschuuang).

As with stories, cultures and traditions, they chop and change over time. If there was some ‘god’ within this that I wished to put a label on it would to attempt to suggest to you that the ‘god’ you seem only able to vaguely define is more or less nothing more than the process of spontaneously creating narratives to map onto the world and said narratives affect through feedback.

That is why I view what you seem to call ‘god’ as the communication between sacred and profane (not that there is a real delineation between the two as humans implant some degree of ‘sacred’ upon every experience they have that moves them - and everything ‘moves’ us in some way.

A guy called Derren Brown refers to certain actions we make as ‘pantomimes’. One example he gave was if you walk down a street and realise you forgot something you articulate it by gesticulation or saying something out loud before turning around and walking back in the direction you’ve just come from. You will also act out such .pantomimes when alone. This is a step towards the ‘sacred’.

For a more obvious set of examples … birthdays, your bedroom, a classroom, a necklace and such. All have haboured within them memories and meanings that make mere places/items have more meaning beyond the ‘profane’.

Note: when I talk about ‘communicating’ between profane and sacred I don’t mean this literally. It is just an abstract way of expressing this. I’m not a dualist in this sense of the discussion because I’m coming at it from a phenomenological perspective.

What are you talking about? There is plenty of scientific literature about such states. Alter states of consciousness are not ‘in a different house’ as you put it. I assume you are implying that the term means something happening ‘outside the brain’ … absolutely not.

If you take various drugs you can induce this state. Again, various other triggers can induce such states.

Try telling someone tripping on mushrooms that experience is not ‘altered’ in any way. That is what I am talking about and why your response seems bafflingly uninformed. The term Altered State of Consciousness is a scientific term to describe (funnily enough) an altered state of consciousness.

If you have never heard of the term before a quick glance here should suffice (not that I’ve read it):

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

Not just me. A number of prominent neuroscientists.

Triggers include:

- sleep dep
- fasting
- dancing
- intense focus
- hyperventilation

Basically, things that stress the body. These all feature in religious practices and they have some beneficial uses but can obviously be dangerous.

You think neuroscience is bullshit? ASC’s are known phenomena. They are not woo woo, just certain brain states that do weird things.

I’ve experienced ‘bliss’/‘heaven’ and I exist within the universe. If you are talk about something beyond my comprehension then it is beyond my comprehension.

I don’t understand how you can say some beings have ‘good reason’ without knowing what he reason is? If you do know the reason then you must have the mind capable of fully understanding infinity and the eternal (which I cannot except for obvious reasons I hope).

I find it hard to justify the existence of some such being/s in anything other than a wholly abstract sense. In that category I have no issue with framing some fundamental unknowns/unknowable aspects of nature as x or y to serve as place holders though.

My view is more or less the reverse of yours. I see humanity as creating god/s and this doesn’t make them ‘lesser’ as they are cumulative aspects of all humanity expressed in multiple ways - and it is telling that there are common features across all cultures too.

I view a lot of religious belief as a kind of ‘narrative’ that straddles the Profane and Sacred aspects of human life.

In terms of ‘theism’ I think polytheism makes more sense as people can role play certain things and deal with problems piecemeal rather than try and ‘act out’ being Jesus or some such thing.

The relevance in what I mentioned above is that this is something innate to humans and can be seen in all cultures. It might therefore be worth paying attention to it if we are interested in ourselves, our place and the general meanings we foster life.

Religion fascinates me no end. There are some common features across all cultures that related to altered states of consciousness. Key triggers are key to rituals within religious institutes alongside numerous mnemonic techniques.

I’ve found hitting yourself and screaming works best :D

People avoid crazy people. Derren Brown had a good way of dealing with such by talking nonsense so someone.

BS, more like sublimation, rationalization on steroids. Trying to make yourself feel better about... — Agent Smith

Not sure what that means? I was talking about instances where members of the ‘audience’ took on the role of one of the representations on stage - sometimes they would kill, kill themselves eat feces or numerous other things. Full on Dionysus crap

I have a strong interest in this area. I have no intention of ‘rejecting’ answers only questioning their meaning. (See Above)

Okay. But can you comprehend ‘eternal’ or ‘infinite’. I argue you cannot so your definition is imprecise and mostly meaningless because of this.

I have no issue with you believing that some beings created other beings. I cannot except that you have knowledge of ‘infinity’/‘eternal’ matters though.

What do you mean by ‘heaven’?

Note: thank you for replying. Most people think I am poking fun sadly :(

Some would argue it is not an ‘extension’ but rather a piece of the ‘machinery’ of language - spoken or otherwise.

The Chorus in ancient Greece kind of outline what I mean by this. There is something interesting about how they were used in drama - and of course we have a rather myopic view of ‘drama’ in the modern world today but it was/is more ‘ritualistic’ in other cultures.

Clifford Geertz did some nice work in Bali on this. The ‘audience’ participated in ‘plays’ and entered trance states. In modern cinema it is easy to view ‘viewing a movie’ as something passive rather than an active engagement because that is how it has evolved over time.

The term ‘light’ is similar, in some ways, to the term ‘god’. It is ‘created’ as a means of encapsulating phenomena.

For me the so-called ‘religious tendency’ of humanity is more or less about creative interpretation that happens to serve memory and recall through emotive power. It is not much of a stretch to see how such a power mental tool can fashion a ‘god’ as an overarching view of ‘reality’.

Tell me what you mean by ‘god’ and see if I reject it.

My point was ‘atheism’ is a term created by people of religious belief to define others that couldn’t care less. When it gets to a point where so-called believers are actively affecting those that don’t care they might not be passive and perhaps question what it is the others are saying they have ‘rejected’.

Not believing in the teapot orbiting Jupiter is along the same lines. Why would I believe such a thing? Whatever this ‘god’ is define it and see what I think.

Also, I could state I believe all kinds of things that you may never have thought about or care for. I would not then need to create a term to marginalise your personal views on such matters though would I?

‘Let there be light’ and so ‘light’ becomes ;)

Well the whole ‘love of wisdom’ is merely a roughshod translation from a ancient language.

Having a ‘love of wisdom’ is kind of pointless if you are talking about ‘wisdom’ in a sense that means something different from others.

You are right. The more common modern conception frames philosophy as more concerned with questions. I think that might be why a great many people feel they are able to jump in as they feel it is ‘safe’ to avoid conclusions.

Frankly that is utter garbage. An atheist doesn’t ‘reject’ god, they just never really considered it at all and when told about some said ‘god’ simply don’t know/understand what the hell people are talking about - hence comparison to Santa.

You can see this is hunter gatherer tribes who were told of some ‘god’ and they asked where the god was. They believe what they see and have some vague belief in a possible afterlife (but they are non-committal).

Everyone is born an atheist because everyone is born without any real conception of themselves let alone some hypothetical being.

@Agent Smith It helps to understand a so-called ‘theist’ by asking what they mean by ‘god’ or whatever term they pick.

You will find there is a limitation to how well they can define what they are talking about, and if they are genuine they might even say they cannot possibly state what they feel/mean.

Have you red much of Eliade? The Sacred and The Profane is a nice book.

Our conception of existence is necessarily done so through a narrative. The ‘we’ that we are is only possible through narrative. Before we create a story there is no ‘we’.

Through certain studies we can see that we are born with empathy and project certain feelings onto objects that appear to interact with each other. Projecting agency onto objects is where the ‘narrative’ sprouts from.

The ‘narrative’ of ‘narratives’ is our nature.

Patriotism is a disease.

Women are generally less aggressive than men. There have been multiple studies to discern this. I believe the chance of a woman being more aggressive than a man is something like 40-60. The real divider is the physical strength obviously.

Aa for ‘fight’ it is not a technical term. It can mean ‘verbal exchange,’ ‘physical exchange’ or even ‘personal struggle’ in an abstract sense. An argument can be a fight. I would guess any possible distinction would come about due to the level of passion and hostility involved.

I can disagree with my partner but that doesn’t mean we fight about it. I can fight with my partner too but we have never exchanged physical blows or had any kind of hostile physical interaction. I would never raise a hand to her and she would never raise a hand to me either. I know this.

Anyway, why do women hate men? Is it alos because of ‘sex’?

Don’t be silly. You can figure that out for yourself. Minimal force is fine, be this grabbing arms or pushing away - both of which can result in some injury being incurred.

If there are weapons involved then a light kick or punch is fine.

If you’re trying to make out I would happily pound someone in the face repeatedly then absolutely not. Lethal force is possible for both sexes but more likely for men as they generally possess greater strength. If we were talking about some muscle-bound woman who was adept at cage fighting then I would likely reply in kind to a punch to the face. It is a matter of judging what is appropriate in the circumstances whether who you face is male or female, but I would repeat that same sex has a different dynamic for sure because men are generally brought up to protect women not assault them, and women often seek protection and security from men rather than the other way around.

This is a surprisingly common question on this forum. There are different ways to define what we mean by ‘philosopher’ depending on the context:

- Someone who actively studies philosophical texts with rigour (a scholar of philosophy).
- Someone who is erudite and interested in multiple fields that enjoys sharing and discussing/expressing ideas (more of a colloquial definition).
- Someone who builds ideas on previous works by philosophers with a high degree of analytic, discursive and critical thought (more of a professor/student level beyond scholarship).
- Someone interested in knowledge and information, meaning and existence and general ‘purpose’ of living/life questions without much rigour (more of an armchair philosopher or navel gazer).
- Someone actively involved in ‘spiritual’ pursuits. Be this of religious doctrines or other esoteric ideas and views.

Only two of these are technically viable whilst the others are just colloquial terms. For myself I straddle between the professional and colloquial sense. I am interested in multiple fields and have always been inclined to think and study. I have studied philosophical texts and lectures to some degree, but my over all view is not really akin to framing myself as a ‘philosopher’.

A lot of people just think they can call themselves a ‘philosopher’ because they have done a degree in philosophy or simply because they sit around thinking about things a lot. Others have themselves as a guru of sorts. Many others are failed politicians or wannabe politicians.

In a derogatory sense I guess I am more of a ‘sit around and think a lot’ person. I didn’t bother to read much actual philosophy until I was in my thirties.

I have repeatedly defined myself as a wannabe intellectual. I sometimes think I have the potential to offer up something of value to everyone … other times I view the pursuit as a whimsy. There is something egotistical involved to announcing yourself as a ‘philosopher’ I feel, but it is more or less a thankless task that is only ever really appreciated by future generations long after we’re gone (unless we get the opportunity to publish something popular or teach).

I have a general contempt for anyone calling themselves a ‘philosopher’ if I’m being brutally honest - but that is part of my anarchical nature.

‘Fighting’ doesn’t always mean physical violence though.

If a woman hit me repeatedly and wouldn’t stop I would hit her back - but not full force.

In any relationship between a man and woman if one hits the other end the relationship instantly.

In a relationship between members of the same sex the dynamics are different so violence might help relieve the situation and so I wouldn’t say it is an instant ‘end the relationship’ scenario in every case.

Note: Not quite sure what this has to do with reasons for men hating women (who hits who)?

The reasons men may hate a particular woman is pretty much the same as for why they might hate a particular man. Hating one woman does not make anyone a ‘woman hater’ … I find the idea rather ridiculous and if such a degree of hatred towards a woman existed it would likely stem from a poor relationship with their mother rather than some association with sexual intercourse.

Of course some extreme ‘feminist’ types would then accuse me of ‘blaming women’ for men’s said ‘hatred’ of women. That is nonsense. A person causes someone to hate not an entire category of people. If someone has poor relations with some/any category of people then it is fairly easy to understand why they may overextend such feelings.

I don’t know what could mean to ‘excel at being a woman’ and I stated that it is unlikely to untangle it from culture (you just chose ‘society’ as a replacement for the term ‘culture’).

I don’t think it is hard to argue that men and women are different, but sometimes people forget that compared to most species the distinctions between male and female are small in humans. We can talk about general trends but given that, psychologically speaking, men and women are far more alike than different from individual to individual it is mostly conjecture. We are better off talking about what allows humans to ‘excel’ rather than reduce humans into select categories.

If we are talking about the structure of societies we could even argue about what does and doesn’t constitute a ‘society’ and whether or not social structures inhibit certain aspects of our nature or not. It is endless.

In terms of ‘excelling’ at being a man or a woman my view is that it is completely dependent upon the circumstances said men/women find themselves in. When it comes to circumstances that tilt towards physiological differences then men and women are equipped differently.

When it comes to leadership both masculine and feminine traits serve society. The biggest error in colloquial thought is that ‘masculine’ means ‘male’ and ‘feminine’ means ‘female’. I don’t see how society can shift this thought without destroying the truth of these reasonably distinctive categories that shed light of human psychology. I see it as rather bizarre that women who act like men - buy into power structures and act aggressively and competitively) think they are empowering women … they are neither empowering women nor disempowering women, they are merely empowering the system that is already in place.

I heard an interesting, and highly speculative, idea put forth by the guy who wrote Homosapiens. He posed that males have a better psychological make up for ruling over large portions of the population (with something of a hypnotic effect). I don’t really think so myself but it did make me think about population size versus certain innate psychological traits. I do wonder if certain traits at one level cause problems in leadership roles where at another level they are a boon (in terms of sphere of influence and numbers). For example neuroticism may be extremely useful on a one-to-one basis as it can reveal difficult problems at an intimate level whereas on a large scale it would look more like mob mentality.

Levi-Strauss did a fair bit to show how different family/tribe relations can be. In one instance the mother’s brother had more of a role in bringing up the child than the father - who was more of an uncle weirdly.

The most common factor is simply down to DNA. Brothers sharing a wife makes sense as their family genes are being past on.

In communal living where mother’s and father’s are not known and children mingle they don’t tend to see each other as anything other than brothers and sisters, so that is problematic.

For any large scale society to function for prolonged periods I believe there is a need for higher than normal levels of tolerance (to differing members of said society), or rather a ‘mechanism’ in place that allows different members of a given society to adapt.

Ideas of sex, sexual orientation and sexuality are just small pieces that can cloud judgement if not considered alongside various other factors, but need to be looked at so as not to miss their importance in combination with other aspects of human interaction.

It just may be that women that excel at being women suit positions that differ from men that excel at being men … the question is then more about what exactly we could possibly mean by saying ‘excel’ here and this inevitably cannot be disentangled from cultural factors above mere physiological processes.

There is then the issue of fertility and age. Women and men are in better positions to contribute to a given society in different episodes of their lives. I think people do not tend to view the elderly in as good a light as they used to (in Western Culture especially).

To keep on track with the topic how do roles differ between older men and women? Is there less difference?

Basically, I presume matriarchy is both necessary and natural to the maintenance of a matrilineal society to at least an extent that makes it a noteworthy difference from Western culture which is patrilineal and patriarchal. — unenlightened

The history of Iceland brings this into question. To this day girls inherit their mother’s name and boys inherit their father’s name. Women also used to fight, control ships and lead others. I guess such women would be viewed as ‘patriarchal’ though because they were ‘acting as men’ or some such nonsense?

The notion of ‘power’ in matriarchal society would be more associated with qualitative potential or creative capacity than any quantifiable consolidations of potential or possession of value. The notion of ‘societal control’ would be replaced by that of collaboration, rendering ‘loyalty’ less of an issue overall. — Possibility

Why? You have not presented any kind of argument here.

It would depend on the level of justification. I may sympathise with their position if their argument is articulate enough and may even be slightly swayed?

I don’t believe any of my positions (points of view, opinions and/or beliefs) should be viewed as unmovable objects.

I stated I am personally against conscription in general. The caveat being I assume there is some possible scenario that would make conscription more appealing as an idea.

Fans of Carol Adams I assume?

@Amity @Tobias

Iceland

[replyWow! Okay[r I hope for your sake that is satire.

‘Everything’ … so then it not worthy of note.

How about starting a war for resources (the usual reason). They said it was the main reason, or one of them, I believe? You would have to do a better job of explaining why this is. I am not saying people are not driven to violence due to some ‘sexual malfunction’ or some such thing, just that I don’t see how it can be viewed as anything like a main reason for driving someone into war/violence.

I am open to a reasoned account of why this may be so (specifically as an item that majorly entwined with war/violence).

maybe we were talking past each other? Let me know …

My stance is pretty simple.

1) Any war can be ‘justified’ and such ‘justification’ comes from a personal/collective perspective.

2) Conscription is a Law enforced by a state. Citizens can abide by the rules of law where they were born, suffer the consequences of not adhering to the laws, or leave (be this easy or hard).

3) Forced Conscription is a Law made in wartime. If I didn’t agree with the war I would leave the country most likely rather than fight back against the state. Hard to say how I would react though in reality. Other people may or may not share my views.

4) If I was the leader of a State I would not say unilaterally that I would NOT declare Forced Conscription. It would depend wholly on circumstances as I am aware there are hard choices to make and sacrifices to be made for some perceived ‘betterment’.

5) I also believe there can be scenarios where starting a war is ‘better’ than not starting a war - but I by no means see this as anything like a common occurrence NOR can I offer a historical example of such a war.

Laws are not real. I am not ‘preaching’ anything, just stating that the Laws does not have complete control over our personal choices and views, yet I concede easily that it obviously impacts upon them. I’ve had this view since adolescence and would most certainly have gone to prison rather than fight in a war when I was a teenager (I was far more stubborn back then).

Now I’m older a have a more nuanced take and understand that there could be reasons to fight, but I’m still at heart an anarchist of sorts when it comes to taking orders without question from so-called figures of authority.

If I was in my country of birth and they declared that I had to fight in a war I believe was utterly wrong I would do my upmost to flee asap. If stopped then I’m not convinced I would be staunch enough to refuse if threatened with imprisonment, torture or execution. I like to believe imprisonment maybe, torture too (depending on extent), but the execution would likely sway my hand :)

My argument is NOT that people should be forced to fight? I have no idea where you got that from. My point was that I am not saying it is inconceivable that there would be a circumstance to literally knowing send people to their slaughter. There is certainly a great, great danger within such thoughts and views BUT they are being displayed here in light of understanding there can be extreme circumstances that break the general rule.

As a general ‘rule’/‘law’ I am not for Forced Conscription at all (that should be obvious). Just because I admit there could be a situation that may contradict this does not make my position contradictory. ‘Justification’ is an extremely grey term.

Agreed. We don’t really have a choice though. We have to choose! :D

If you’re going to be silly I can stop talking? You get my point I’m sure. The idea that we are ‘forced’ is a convenient ‘excuse’ to just follow rules you don’t believe in.

Don’t get me wrong. I ‘fall in line’ everyday in one way or another and fool myself enough into thinking I ‘pick my fights’ well and with nobility. I know I’m mostly a coward though at the end of the day and maybe that knowledge will be enough one day to prevent a poor decision.

If my country was going to declare war, and I was against it wholeheartedly, then I would leave asap rather than allow the government to lock me up for refusing to fight … or so I would like to believe! Maybe in reality I would simply fall in line and pretend that I could ‘help from within’ or some such nonsense to placate my sense of self respect? Who knows.

There is a choice. Stating you were ‘forced’ to do something really just means that you refused to accept the consequences of refusing to do what you were told was right.

In one sense I was ‘forced’ to go to school, but in another sense I chose to go to school rather than suffer the consequences of playing truant in my childhood years.

Generally speaking ‘adults’ are in a slightly better position to ‘choose’ between action and inaction having developed beyond adolescence. That is not to say I think it is ‘fair’ to judge someone as ‘mature’ enough to make such decisions based merely on the number of days spent on Earth.

Does just war exist？ — Howard

That question doesn’t really make much sense to me.

There are ‘reasons’ to start a war. Any reason can seem ‘justified’ in the eye of the beholder, and I don’t find it inconceivable that a scenario could not be imagined in which a declaration of war was what I would call ‘appropriate’ - maybe a ‘global threat’ instigated by another body of people that would indirectly cause death/genocide.

In reality the chances of such hypothetical scenarios coming into play is likely really small. This is why people talk of ‘justification’ for any action. There is a need to weigh and balance the good against better and the bad against worse rather than to just assume everything as merely good versus bad (which in my personal experience does not exist other than in abstraction/delusion).