A photograph is a copy of what exists in the world, and therefore depicts what is necessarily true. — RussellA

My point was that prior to photographic technology paintings served a similar purpose (often political).

Paintings at one point in history a kind of primitive 'Photograph,' but now I think the photograph is more 'primitive' in what it can achieve.

If I've got it right, the prefrontal cortex doesn't stop developing until around 25. So that ship sailed long, long ago. — Ludwig V

There is a big difference between 16 and 18 yrs of age. Anyone with basic life experience knows this. The development of the prefrontal cortex effects numerous areas of cognitive behaviour. It is not only about long and short term planning. That was one item of concern.

Note: I might be more in favour of increasing the age from 18 to 25 than lowering it from 18 to 16 tbh. The difference in developmental progress is seriously stacked in earlier years of neurogenesis.

As for senile dementia, I see no reason they should still be able to vote.

Specifically, teenagers are not mentally equipped to plan long-term. Adults are more prone to diliberate and attend to long-term consequences.

The prefrontal cortex needs to develop. This is not something we can simply dismiss.

Not everyone is equal. If the means of a political voting system is to create a stable society in which people can flourish this means dependance comes at the cost of responsibility.

Democracy is an idea only. The practical application of any governmental system has to compete with the reality that faces it. If we create a poltical body that is increasingly dependent upon the short-term whim of inexperienced minds - who are biologically driven by a myopic perspective - then I fear for the long-term future. Of course, mayeb a fresh and naive perspective is just what is needed? Who knows?

Either way, our intuitions will lead us on more than our knowledge. When they meet each other then we have a period of relative harmony and peace (like now). Current societal changes do seem to have us at a very imnportant juncture in human civilization. Will be interesting to see how things pan out.

Because simply offering more candy to a baby is offering candy to a baby. Young adults have similar inbuilt biases regarding immediate pay-off versus long-term consequences. That said, it could be argued that the vast majority of the population is made up of more senior citizens so perhaps some form of temporary balance would be ideal?

Speaking broadly I view education as a means of reading people for their real education. Education for me is about people learning how to educate themselves rather than fill a gap in the job market.

Exposure is of importance in early development.

All said and done mayeb we will see teenagers start to take a more serious interest in world affairs? Somehow, even if they do, I do not think they are capable of really grasping more far reaching topics simply because they are more focused on short term goals rather than long term.

Is there a category which painting and drawing share? — Moliere

This seems like a weird question. I feel that there is a mix up here in one term being used to mean different things.

Clearly painting a fence is a mundane and necessary action, just as painting a wall is. Art is about producing something that has no mundane function to it,although the two can cross over if one wishes to paint their fence with a certain scheme or theme in mind. Just because painting is a gerund it does not make it different from drawing, other than by way of the tools and materials used.

At a strecth one could argue that, depending on cultural traditions, the effect of drawing use often associated with writing, whereas painting is usually something more broad - as in painting a larger object. Scale and rationality may sneak in when it comes to using a tool more familiar as a writing impliment than as a means of producing art ... but then again, poetry is art too! How much this effects the user is likley quite a subjective element.

I have come to the conclusion that forms of art are all about offering up a means of viewing the human experience through different spacio-temporal lenses. The static picture extends thorugh time, the moving picture or piece of music spreads a single item of human experience out.

Through each different medium we effectively extend or contract in opposition to how the art form is presented.

:grin: Sceptical of scepticism!

Historically, the original Empiricists were skeptics. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I would hope that all philosophical positions are held with a healthy degree of scepticism rather than dogma. The whole point of philosophy, in particular, is to play with the questions rather than adhere to some universal maxim as far as I can see. That said, we all undoubtedly fall into one pit of obsession at one point or another and the ability to scramable out of such positions may require more scepticism than some people are happy to play with?

I see it all as lens and perspectives. The better an individual understanding across as many fields of interest as possible the less idealised they become, and the more open to looking at avenues others dismiss out of hand.

There is the old story of a Man coming home due to a mechanic not fixing his car properly and finding his wife cheating on him, then proceeding to commit murder. The reason for the murder can be viewed as being due to the mechanic, the cheating wife, the heart stopping, etc., with the overall point being NONE are incorrect yet NONE alone are the whole story.

Your suggestions are more problematic because they impose potential voting tests, enfranchising only those that meet certain criteria beyond just age and citizenship. — Hanover

I do not believe in voting tests. I marked it as something people often express.

My view is a limiting factor that scales with age. Maybe something like a 16 yr olds vote counts as 1 vote whilst someone 30+ counts as 2 votes. In a more complex system I would have people's age reflect more heavily on different policies, but that would require a somewhat clunky system.

All in all, I think education can help people of all ages to acquire a better perspective from which to vote according to their beliefs, desires and needs.

It's certainly a leftwards slant. Could it be that all of our values come from our heart, and our heart hardens with age? — Down The Rabbit Hole

It is well known that as we age we tilt more towards conservatism, which makes perfect sense when you think about it really.

My concern is more or less that I do not regard myself as anywhere near being clued up on living life until I was 40 yrs old let alone 18 or 21. I absolutely believed I had a reasonable grasp on what the world was about in my 20's but there is simply no substitute for lived experience.

A more viable system for me would be a gradual increase in influence with age and experience. I am not completely against a 16 yr old voting, but I do not think their vote should weigh in the same as someone my age.

Whatever system is in place will inevitably fall short ... but I guess that is precisely what democracy is about. We fall short, over shoot, and keep trying to correct.

I would have to disagree with this sentiment as the young are easily influenced and so are more likely to fall prey to populist ideologies.

Fully agree regarding a basic education in how democracies function.

Additionally, another problem with ethical naturalism is its non-deterministic nature. In any natural science, the laws or theories established are deterministic. — Showmee

Well, not really. I was not arguing for naturalism anyway. Nothing is completely deterministic. The logical premises you use are abstractions-of and do not exist (hence what I say above). Logic only works within very specific bounds, and life easily overflows these bounds at every point of the rim of reality we know of.

The effects of gravity, for example, will always be measured regardless of the number of trials. — Showmee

I think you are misunderstanding my point here. I am saying that Gravity is a placeholder for a phenomenon observed. As you noted there are two distinct ways of expressing how Gravity appears to us through two entirely different perspectives (Newton and Einstein).

What I am doing is equating this to the phenomenon of Ethics. There are differing view points that align in some way with what is observed (be this in language for ethics or phsyically for gravity).

Error Theory can then be taken to state that Gravity does not exist. All we know of are some perspectives that provide an illusion of Gravity being a thing, but really it is nothing.

Non-cognitivism does not have to necessarily dismiss the existence of Ethics it can simply reframe it, take an alternative perspective. If such a perspective functions better than the previous iterations of how we look at the phenomenon of ethics (as objective, subjective, mislabelled, etc.,.) then we are exploring and discovering more about the phenomenon at hand.

The basis upon which Error Theory rests comes under its own scrutiny. To look upon the logical basis of Error Theory as not-being-a-thing, meaning framed in idealised abstractions, show just as much the item under consideration to be in error as it does error theory itself. A metaphysical rug has been pulled out from beneath us and then its existence has been denied.

@Astorre You might find this quote from Kierkegaard interesting:

Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith, so that anyone who has not made this movement does not have faith: for only in infinite resignation does my eternal validity become transparent to me, and only then can there be talk of grasping existence on the strength of faith.

- Fear and Trembling, p. 75, Penguin Classics

I believe it is very basic. Nothing more than experience. I think many things usually thought of as consciousness are actually what is being experienced. — Patterner

So panpsychism with the belief that every mirco and macro item is experiencing on some level.

No, that is not my view. A clockwork machine would not have made skyscrapers, computers, nuclear bombs, or the Hoover Dam. It would not have written Shakespeare's works, The Malazan Book of the Fallen, The Bible, or Gilgamesh. It would not contain the works of Bach, The Beatles, or Steely Dan. I'm saying the universe is not a clockwork machine because consciousness is a part of it. — Patterner

I think you mean yes. Without consciousness the universe is a clockwork machine.

Could you please provide a few short quotes from him? — MoK

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

Albert Camus wrote a piece on Sisyphus that is very famous.

Yes, it is problematic, because I'm suggesting something very different from what isbso commonly assumed. i'm saying that, without consciousness being there from the beginning, things would simply exist. And, even beings with our mental abilities would not be conscious. We would be automatons. — Patterner

So you are looking at the univserse as a clockwork machine without the input of consciousness? I think when we are getting to such far flung thoughts we have very little to work with and even rational thought dissolves.

It is a bit like the whole issue of framing morality that is talked about often enough. The means of measuring may simply be impossible via material methods. Until there is a new paradigm I do not see things changing too much.

The best any of us can do is investigate the phenomenon of consciousness firsthand and inform ourselves about the work of physicists and cognitive neuroscientists (to name but two fields of interest!).

I am mostly of the mind that the very term consciousness is far too nebulous for current purposes. Until someone comes along and reconceptualises the broad phenonemon of consciousness I do not expect any real progress for quite some time. I personally believe Husserl was somewhat on the right track even though I am not really in agreement with what he believed could be achieved through his phenonemological approach.

One term always stuck out to me - I think Damasio or possibly Colin Renfrew mentioned it - the archiac term of 'ken'. I think utilising this kind of concept more universally in academia could lead to new approaches. The language within these sciences does certainly need clear delineations but often I find this can take away from a more wider-lens perspective on the matter under investigation.

Can you elaborate on this idea of consciousness morphing? — Patterner

I meant nothing more than Consciousness could be a to something else (Space-time or something) as Matter is to Energy. Was just speculation. It does nto seem we are much closer to understanding Consciousness as some fundamental form just yet and maybe it isn't. Maybe we will live to see a breakthrough.

Dogmatism, however, deprives the possibility of becoming and it may be good as a temporary solution, but in the long term it is unviable. For a neighbor will come and become your master due to greater development, which ensures pluralism. — Astorre

I do not understand what you mean by this within the context of the discussion?

An existential choice is possible precisely because humans do not know the ultimate purpose of life or the consequences of their decisions, and the awareness of mortality (finitude) spurs them to act. — Astorre

I am onboard with this generally speaking. Our ignorance leaves us somewhat at sea. This again I see as a reflection of responsibility. We bias positive outcomes over negative ones in terms of self-authorship. If things end up taking a worse turn we are more likely to deny responsibility, and in contrast when they go well we claim authorship where little or none exist.

Today, authenticity is going beyond the boundaries of today, but in the past, although these boundaries were narrower, going beyond them was also something authentic. — Astorre

My point is the exact opposite. Bruno lived in civilized society not the kind of Closed Society Popper was referring to, where the heirarchy is the foundation of existence not something 'enforced'. It is through humanities opposition to nature that led us into a world of 'choice' rather than left to the mercy of natures chaotic machinations.

I am taking this much further back to try and help you establish the human condition from a point where 'choice' was not even a concept. People just lived to survive without question of anything beyond their immediate physical bounds, because this was their Whole World (finite) not a modern world that has reasoned beyond the bounds of the mountain range, seas, oceans and stars.

Choice itself is the item that led to existential contemplation. Beyond the bounds of our primal natures we come to reflect on possibilities rather than immediate circumstances..

What if we view the premodern era as a time of faith in oracles, in contrast to modernity’s faith in objectivity? The belief in objectivity has undoubtedly led to significant advancements in comfort and safety, but, as you rightly noted, it has failed to deliver personal happiness. On the contrary, the expansion of the horizon of choice in modernity—from selecting weapons to adopting worldviews (religion or atheism)—has made life less predetermined but not necessarily more fulfilling. A premodern person didn’t choose between a spear and a rifle because rifles didn’t exist, nor did they contemplate atheism in the absence of that concept. This limitation narrowed the scope of choice but may have also reduced existential tension. — Astorre

I was thinking more along hte lines of Popper's Open and Closed societies in relation to your view on this too. As in the effects of rationality from prehistory into human civilization.

Returning to the topic of existential versus algorithmic choice, I would argue that existential choices existed in the premodern era, albeit within a narrower framework: choosing a partner, deciding whether to engage in or avoid conflict. — Astorre

Well, not necessarily. Just because we live as we do now it does not mean people used to consider their existence. We care more about simple survival first and foremost without any real consideration of anything beyond our immediate limits (speaking generally here for the development of the human race).

The weight of responsibility for these choices was no less significant, as a wrong decision could lead to death or exile. — Astorre

There was no choice. People knew their place and did not abscond from it. The 'choice' was in the hands of nature. The ruler of the tribe was sacred not democratically voted for. It is with the advent of civilization that Open society began to develop in sedentary life.

Belief in an oracle might have alleviated some doubts by prescribing a “righteous” path, but it did not negate the nature of choice itself. — Astorre

Most Roman's paid tribute to 'Fortune' when things went their way. 'Choice' was in their society often seen as something in fates hands rather than their own.

I agree with you that modernity has broadened the range of options, but I disagree that the nature of existential choice has changed. It remains rooted in uncertainty and finitude, not in the number of available options. It is this uncertainty, rather than the illusion of control, that continues to fuel the authenticity of our decisions. — Astorre

People do not want freedom. They want something that contradicts freedom - no responsibility. Closed Society gave them this. In Closed Society choice is avoided.

Interesting thoughts that seem in line with some anthropological views.

Prehistoric humans lived in a finite world bounded by the horizon. Any 'beyond' was likely considered unimportant. Today we see something like th eopposite in effect, with our knowledge of the cosmos appreciated as a definite object given through the physical sciences.

Therefore, it is perhaps more likley that this acquanitance with the infinite is what has led to an existential crisis rather than with the prehistoric finitude of existence, which held us in place. We were fated in ancient times by the gods and oracles of the times, yet now we deem to see beyond this veil it is likley this belief in 'seeing beyond' that is the problem of 'choice' over 'acceptance'.

Honestly, prayer to some fundamental and unobtainable 'entity' does seem practical in dealing with misfortune. Just because we call it 'luck' today it does not take away from the fact that some things are beyond us even though we envision our appreciate of the cosmos as more complete today in a phsyical sense.

He is a sensible cookie! His position does parallel that of Richard Feynman and his view of physics. A sense of humility and understanding, in our lack of understanding, would benefit many commentators in every field of interest. Too often it is more common to see people espousing their perspectives or field of research as the be all and end all of all.

To do this, a basic training in the fields of science and art is required. — MoK

I lived life is not something one can learn though. Not everyone gains much wisdom with age but I doubt no one gain any whatsoever.

A basic education can easily lead someone down a blind alley just as it can broaden horizons. Awareness of this is knowledge, whilst understanding it is ourselves who are certainly succumbing to blind alleys or overreaching beyond the horizon is where wisdom lies.

Ironically it seems tha failiure is the only way to make any kind of progress in life. Bravery is learning to keep on keeping on. I believe this is why Sisyphus was regarded as the wisest of all.

Before that there is an issue with naturalism. We do not know what Gravity is, yet we have become able to measure its effects overtime. Morality is much more difficult but, nevertheless, we can see the effects actions that are deemed 'good' and 'bad' and adjust our positions as experience dictates.

So while our current understanding of morality seems absent of naturalistic causes presently it need not be so in the future.

As for branches of Emotivism we see no denial of morality only a reframing of what is actually going on. It explains the subjective nature of 'good' and 'bad' and it is reasonable that communities will come to common understandings of what is good on an evolutionary trajectory too.

There is something to be said for this, but hard to do so without entering realms you wish to steer clear of.

In some sense we can frame those that say consciousness is emergent as being onboard with the idea of universal consciousness as the 'property' of consciousness exists by some means it is just that they cannot elaborate on the how or why to any significant extent. Perhaps they would be willing to talk of a latent consciousness sitting and waiting for a certain amalgam of mundane matter through which to flourish?

I think where you could come to meet the more common expression of 'consciousness' is to understand it as 'emerging'/'awakening'.

However, all things, living and non, experience. — Patterner

This is going to be problematic in expressing your thoughts I feel. The word we have for this is 'exist' not 'experience'. I think if you expressed your thoughts more along the lines of reestablishing what we mean by 'exist' it would get your view point across more clearly.

I think you may also need to address some problems of reductionism here when expressing these ideas. What I mean is we are all, as is everything, made up of parts and these parts are all 'experiencing'/'existing' items. The problem herein is that you say 'rock' or 'person,' but are we then to say that this or that molecule, wavefunction or organ is 'experiencing'/'existing' separate from or entangled with the experiencing of a mental subject?

It could be that consciousness is a fundamental part of the universe that can morph from one form to another. We know this is the case with Energy and Matter so I see no reason to assume that there are no other key elements that make up all we know of given our limited scope of the entire existence of the universe.

This is certainly an interesting and rich landscape to explore but due to this it is also prone to blind speculation - a large reason I stay clear of discussions on consciousness.

What have you read on this subject? I have just started reading Ian McGilchrist's 'The Matter With Things' and feel you may find some useful discussions in this. If short of time I recommend watching an interview or two with him or reading Philosophy Now Issue 164 (which focuses on him and other sin this area; although I confess I have not read the articles in this issue yet).

Ehen I die, there will still be consciousness. But there will no longer be any mental activity to experience. Just the physical body. No more interesting than a rock's consciousness. At least in my opinion. Others may think the consciousness of a dead body is more interesting than a rock's. In there timeframes of human life, there is certainly nore going on in a dead body than there is in a rock. A typical body will decompose much faster than a typical rock will erode. Both will experience their deconstruction, but neither will have any thoughts or feelings about, or awareness of, it. — Patterner

Understood.

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. I have heard that wording more than any other, but I prefer Annaka Harris' "felt experience". I think feeling is what it all means. When Nagel asks "What is it like to be a bat?", the question is really: "What does it feel like to be a bat?" Not how does it feel physically, although that may be a part of it. Not how does it feel emotionally, although that may be a part of it. It's the overall feeling of being.

Really, that's it. If you want detail, then you don't understand this idea. There is no detail to consciousness. The consciousness of different things is not different. Not different kinds of consciousness, and not different degrees of consciousness. There's no such thing as higher consciousness. — Patterner

I am having real trouble here in distinguishing what you are trying to say and exactly how it is different from panpsychism? I cannot seem to find a way to divide the two.

I believe how you are trying to define 'experience' and 'feeling' on different terms here might lead me to understand this better perhaps?

Isn't this the Frankfurt school response, meaning we should impose ways to disrupt the capitalist takeover of technology for its malevolent purposes as opposed to traditional Marxists who would advocate removal of technology from private ownership and placing it back into the hands of the citizens? — Hanover

It is Han's 'Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power'. For whatever reason Baden forgot to cite the main contributing source for this essay. His ideas are basically the bones holding this essay together.

And he has read Han:

This really resonates with my recent readings (Schiller on aesthetics, Byung-Chul Han on technocapitalism, and John Gray on Utopian engineering), and it represents just the type of thinking we need now with the gap between ideological "freedom" and actual freedom becoming ever wider. — Baden

There are more than strong echoes from The Burnout Society too, of which Psychopolitics was a follow up.

Of course, we are as much physical objects as rocks are. — Patterner

How so? I find this analogy strange as a rock is not actually a rock to anything other than that which consciously adheres to it as an object. To an ant, assuming some minimal form of consciousness, the rock is likely nothing more than a surface. A rock cannot 'be' it is the 'beings' that frame a rock as a rock.

These things are not human consciousness. Rather, these things are what humans are conscious of. — Patterner

The feelings-of are consciousness-of.

I would like to try to explore the idea that consciousness is fundamental. — Patterner

In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner

Okay. But you then talk about a 'rock' as conscious? Or was that merely an analogy of an analogy.

I would like to know in more detail - where possible - what you mean by consciousness being "fundamental" please.

@Showmee I should also add that Error Theory is only negative (destructive), yet you move away from non-cognitivism because you claim it is also only capable of negation. Can you explain why or is it just a case of having to choose one to write about over the other?

Approaching ethics from my own perspective, I find the field deeply problematic. Unlike other branches of philosophy, a systematic and formal treatment of ethics seems impossible. — Showmee

Agreed. In principle the possibility of there being an underlying objective morality is neither here nor there as we would likely never come to realise it fully. If you really think about it if you reduce all moral dilemmas into formulaic structures then you are not doing anything moral, merely you are calculating the 'good' in any given action.

If, in a branch of knowledge, being intuitive is more significant than being logical, then such a branch is substantially flawed, especially if it seeks to describe objective facts. Quantum physics is unimaginably more counterintuitive than Newtonian physics; this does not affect the former’s dominance over the latter. Similarly, in the field of mathematics, Gabriel’s Horn, which states that a shape (formed by rotating y = 1/x, for all x≥1, around the x-axis) could have infinite area yet finite volume, is not rendered invalid due to its counterintuitive nature. — Showmee

I am not really sure we can really think about ethics in terms of a kind of Knowledge. Certainly, knowledge can alter our ethical stance in this or that situation but at the end of the day the choice remains a burden on us not on some formula we use to avoid responsibility for the actions we take.

This is primarily where I see the meaning of Ethics being rooted in conscious authorship, in claiming responsibility for actions, rather than absconding from such by relying only on a logical map. That said, what makes this harder to appreciate is just how logical knowledge can influence how we shape our decisions.

Note: Newtonian Mechanics works perfectly well when applied to certain scenarios. It is not a defunct method of calculating.

Establishing a robust non-cognitivist stance requires not only destructive arguments, but also constructive ones—something current accounts fail to deliver satisfactorily. — Showmee

Well, not really. This is like saying neither Newton nor Einstein explained what gravity is fundamentally. It seems to me that infinite reductionism is not particularly handy when it comes to broadening our understanding of the human condition. This is something Ian McGilchrist articulates well in his work.

What I mean by that is one's taste in philosophy. — Moliere

I guess we are all drawn more or less towards one area for numerous reasons. This will hopefully change for most people throughout their lives; which brings us to the additional question of 'good' or 'bad' choices.

I think anyone unwilling to look seriously at opposing arguments is making a mistake. I think anyone unable to see a flaw in their own interpretation of the world is making an even greater mistake.

As for styles, I think it is incumbent on the reader to understand the historical and relational contexts of a piece of writing. For the historical context, when reading Hobbes, Rousseau or Machiavelli, there are occasions when the spirit of the time these people lived in needs to be understood so we can sift out the relevance for our current circumstances. It is absurd to critique any of their thoughts and positions as if they had written their work for the world we find ourselves in. For the relational context, reading a modern philosophical text that attempts to replicate the style of Hegel, Nietzsche or Kant is deeply misguided as they were written for people in well-established circles not for mass consumption.

There are faulty approaches. Individually we must aim to be honest with ourselves as much as possible.

Personally, I opt for a Fox approach above the Hedgehog one (Berlin). Meaning, I am a Fox looking for connections rather than myopic specialisations of the Hedgehog - not to say these people are not needed!

Do you have a sense of your own taste? — Moliere

I have a distaste for philosophy as a be all and end all. I have the same distaste for holding rigidly to any particular field of study or interest. I appreciate that those who have amore rigid grip on certain areas at the cost of others are invaluable, but that just isn't for me. An example of this can be seen in the inability for people like Dawkins and Peterson to understand where each other is coming from. Both provide perspectives that are worthy of consideration, yet both (maybe not equally) all bound within their own interests.

I always look to figures like Richard Feynman who, whilst being a brilliant physicist, went out of his way to take an interest in other people's passions such as kite making or drawing.

Why are you more drawn to particular philosophers, schools, styles, or problems? — Moliere

I do not believe I am. What I read is usually determined by seeking out oppositional views or areas I know little about. Quality/Content overrides style. This goes for science, art, history, etc.,.

Do you think about how to choose which philosopher to read? — Moliere

If I am looking into something particular I think very carefully about who to read and try to find extreme ends of the argument and also someone in the middle ground (philosophy or otherwise). When looking into anthropology I chose Geertz, Eliade and Levi-Strauss specifically because they wrote in different styles, possessed different approaches, and were able to give me a broad perspective of what I was interested in learning more about.

While this could include the prose -- is it elegant or turgid? -- what I want to focus on is the aesthetic judgment of the philosophy itself. — Moliere

In short, I think anyone looking at philosophical choices as 'aesthetic' is more focused on political philosophy. If we asked the same question about a scientist choosing a field of study I think you would find the answer being more or less about intrigue. Only some of the Hedgehog scientists would call their choice of field 'more worthy' and then we are effectively back into social politics and weighing ourselves against others rather than against the nature of being.

One small mistake (in terms of concise writing) that stuck out was the repetition of the quote from Mackie refer to universality. Other than that my main criticism of this piece would have to be you tried to cram in too much with too few words.

All that said, I found it a pretty decent read. I have more to ask and discuss but for the mean time I have a couple of reading suggestions.

1) Bernard Williams, 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'

2) Ian McGilchrist, 'The Matter With Things' - something I have just started reading.

Note: I am also reading Shelly Kegan's 'Answering Moral Skepticism' and paying particular attention to his views against non-cognitivism.

I will defo get around to this. Reading something at the moment by Shelly Kagan that will probably relate to this.

Sure as hell did! Not good enough though.

Read Byung Chul-Han's 'Psychopolitics,' it is almost like he wrote a commentary of Baden's work - only more legible.

Frankly I am at a loss for words. I say these words with disbelief because I cannot fathom WHY anyone would do such a thing.

Made me want to climb a mountain ... sadly, I still haven't :( More fool me!

It was criticism. Stop complaining! You didn't write it :D I am sure Baden can answer if he sees fit. If not, no bother.

So the complaints are just anti-intellectualism, or laziness, or both. — Jamal

No, just honest criticism not really a 'complaint'. If it shows I am not sufficiently intellectual enough so be it.

Others seem to think this is well written so I am willing to bite the bullet and give it another go, but was hoping for some discussion as to how this relates to Byung Chul-Han's work that appear to follow a very similar theme @Baden?

I am not at all ashamed to be flummoxed by it. Something come easily to some and not to others. Such is life :)