Hope destroys fear. Hope is far more powerful than love or evil imo. Hope allows you to die, and as you die, you can still maintain a belief that our species will do better in the future. Even those who have experienced holocaust and ethnic cleansing, can demonstrate hope, often, even before they mention love or hate or revenge. — universeness

As much as I think highly of hope, I think you grant it too much power.
How do you even begin to measure it?
How do you demonstrate it?
I was once told that Fear and Desire are the 2 main motivators.
As in:

...hope and fear always arise together; one hopes to win and fears to lose. — unenlightened

I wonder if it helps to view Fear and Desire as having their own spectrum and on different sides of the same coin. Hmm. Mixing structures here...
So, different kinds and levels.
Is hope a subset of desire or lesser in degree? I think it's more obvious when relating anxiety to fear...
Again, same might be said for love and hate...

I wonder if love/desire ( or even hate) is necessary before any hope can take place.
Before we can hope for anything, we must recognise our needs or wants.

Nina's interpretation moves beyond Harrison and hits levels of intensity that I can't adequately describe.
I had no idea. Thanks again @180 Proof for sharing one of your 'musical joys':

For decades I've tried to curate my own library of musical joys which, unlike "hope", I find that joy motivates courage. — 180 Proof

I would say that the joy felt when listening to such music shared can lift a feeling of hopelessness or despair; the love within can be enough to bring tears. The release of which enables or releases the mind - if slowly - to begin to appreciate what we've been given and what we might still have to give in return.
A sense of peace and care. Even if fleeting...

From Nina's interpretation:

Just a little time, a little care
A little note written in the air
Just the little thank you
We just forget to give back
Cause we're moving too fast
Moving too fast
Forgetting to give back

Keeping this in mind, I'll join in the spirit and attempt to answer all those who cared to take the time to respond. Andante.

Before that, here are some links; a scan of hope in academia:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hope/

https://academic.oup.com/pq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pq/pqac010/6582893

Most elpistologists now agree that hope for a specific outcome involves more than just desire plus the presupposition that the outcome is possible. This paper argues that the additional element of hope is a disposition to focus on the desired outcome in a certain way. I first survey the debate about the nature of hope in the recent literature, offer objections to some important competing accounts, and describe and defend the view that hope involves a kind of focus or attention. I then suggest that this account makes sense of the intuitive thought that there are moral and pragmatic norms on hope that go beyond the norms on desires and modal presuppositions. I conclude by considering some key questions. — Focus Theory of Hope - Andrew Chignell

George's 'Give Me Love (Give me Peace on Earth)' - Jeff Lynn and co (live tribute)

From 'I-Me-Mine' (p246):

GIVE ME LOVE. Sometimes you open your mouth and you don't know what you are going to say, and whatever comes out is the starting point. If that happens and you are lucky - it can usually be turned into a song. This song is a prayer and personal statement between me, the Lord, and whoever likes it. — George Harrison

The Concert for George was held at the Royal Albert Hall in London on 29 November 2002 as a memorial to George Harrison on the first anniversary of his death.[1] The event was organised by Harrison's widow, Olivia, and his son, Dhani, and arranged under the musical direction of Eric Clapton. The profits from the event went to the Material World Charitable Foundation, an organisation founded by Harrison.
[...]
Joe Brown closed the show with a rendition of "I'll See You in My Dreams" on ukulele, one of Harrison's favourite instruments. — Wiki - Concert for George

'While My Guitar Gently Weeps (Taken from Concert For George)'


***
'Joe Brown in combination with Concert for George - I'll See You In My Dreams
01 Concert For George Band Rehearsals [Reprise Instrumental of I'll See You In My Dreams]
02 Joe Brown - I'll SeeYou In My Dreams - Live In Liverpool,'

:cry: :fire: :pray:
Wonderful tribute capturing the essence of George's :heart: :nerd: and :cool:
What a life; music, fun and love.
'Any Road' - the lyrics and chosen clips are amazing...the simple ukulele end strum.
Thank you :flower:

The Thrill is Gone - Peter Frampton Band (feat. Sonny Landreth)


***
B.B. King

Thank you :sparkle:

Another bird; another time, place and person. Beautiful and never forgotten :sparkle:
With nod and thanks to @tim wood for this introduction, about a year ago:



***
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/599220

And Hillary Hahn in my opinion in a class even beyond these, they mainly about allowing Bach's structures to be as accessible as possible. Hahn, on the other hand, about rendering the feeling in the music, seeking it, finding it, studying and understanding it, performing it.

As if, in going to church of a Sunday to hear a sermon, one encountered the voice of God itself!

Here:
Furtwangler
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJG5A-klfgE

Kleiber:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKcAAA1O2sc

Zander
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3EiRynr1Us

Tureck:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XoAJ98PbDM

Biggs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E_peLhyksQ&list=OLAK5uy_n_ngZQXiZXethaXN2SWX-IoKE6WKfGOBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_XmdFE-7dM

Hahn:
Sibelius
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O65YBjweUPo&t=741s
Three mini-presentations
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICGFmN85J50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OwULR_YkJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=015QVOO-5Ek
Lark Ascending
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOWN5fQnzGk — tim wood

Pity the Carnegie Hall video is no longer available. — Amity

@SophistiCat
Found this. The Schumann piece comes in just after rapturous applause at 11:00. (if I hear right!)

Wilhelm Backhaus at age 72 in splendid form, giving four encores during a Carnegie Hall recital in New York in 1956. Starting with some preluding to establish the key of the next piece, he plays:
- Schubert's Impromptu in B flat major Opus 142 no. 3, D935;
- Chopin's Etude Opus 25 no. 2 in F minor;
- Schumann's "Vogel als Prophet", from his Waldszenen Opus 82;
- Mozart's Rondo alla Turca from his Sonata no. 11 in A major, KV331 — Backhaus - 4 encores at Carnegie Hall, 1956

I woke up this morning with this playing in my head... and it still is. — SophistiCat

I've been thinking about this since you wrote it.
I woke up this morning with an earworm but not any dangling from the Prophet Bird.
And I wondered what is it about music that has that effect on our brain or mind.
I guess it's the recurrence of a motif. Is that all? Why does some music resonate more than others?
Does the impression depend on the listener's mental state or brain rhythm already going on?
What do you hear that I can't?

I've listened to Schumann's piece 3 times now. The first time, my ears didn't get it at all.
No idea how this could enter my skull and stick there. Nada.

I think I understood the lightness of the beginning as being that of the bird, then I heard a change at about 1:20. It reminded me of a hymn, and the repetition there is the bit that is going round my head right now.

So then I looked it up:
https://www.henle.de/us/music-column/schuhmann-jahr-2010/schumann-anniversary-2010/the-prophet-bird/
Most interesting with links to the score and Goethe no less:

In this middle section Schumann quotes, and certainly not as a coincidence, a part from his “Scenes from Goethe’s Faust” that he composed at about the same time, namely the “Chor Seliger Knaben” (the quote is underlined)
:
PATER SERAPHICUS, mittlere Region.
Welch ein Morgenwölkchen schwebet
Durch der Tannen schwankend Haar?
Ahn ich, Was im Innern lebet?
Es ist junge Geisterschar.
CHOR SELIGER KNABEN.
Sag uns, Vater, wo wir wallen,
Sag uns, Guter, wer wir sind!
Glücklich sind wir: allen, allen
Ist das Dasein so gelind.
Sag uns, Vater, wo wir wallen,
sag uns, Guter, wer wir sind.
You can listen to this part of the composition HERE .
Simply for inspiration, I added the lyrics to the music in the new Urtext edition: Sample pages — Schumann - The Prophet Bird

... and this:

Consequently, Schumann’s pedal markings are an intended and important part of the composition. But hardly any musician respects them. Next to Clara Haskil’s recording (also on YouTube) that many piano enthusiasts rightly favor, there are at least (only?) two further recordings that not only follow Schumann’s original intentions, including the important and sophisticated pedal markings, but are also wonderfully expressive. One was recently released on CD; a recording by Andreas Staier [Robert Schumann: "Hommage à Bach". Harmonia Mundi France HMC 901989] whose play on an Erard grand piano succeeds in communicating the enchantment of this piece. The other recording is by Wilhelm Backhaus. There are both a studio and a live recording by Backhaus, both made in the 1950s. Everything here is perfect. The live recording from Carnegie Hall with "The Prophet Bird" as an encore is especially great (it sets in at 2:10, following a breathtaking performance of Chopin’s Etude op. 25/2 in f minor and an intriguingly improvised modulation to the Schumann piece): Video no longer available — Schumann - The Prophet Bird

Pity the Carnegie Hall video is no longer available.
Thanks for the introduction. I might listen again...if it doesn't drive me crazy trying to think...
Any idea as to the hymn it reminds me of?

Best now just to listen without thinking. Simply to feel it :sparkle:

:cool: :love:

It's not often I find myself dancing 60's style in cosy slippers and dressing gown, but you did it!
This morning. You Got It.

From wiki:

Although it is an Orbison solo single, Orbison's fellow Traveling Wilburys bandmates, Tom Petty and Jeff Lynne, co-wrote the song and played instruments on the record [...]
Orbison gave his only public rendition of the hit at the Diamond Awards Festival in Antwerp, Belgium, on November 19, 1988, just 17 days before his death and before the single was released. This footage was incorporated into the song's music video. A 2014 version incorporated videos of rehearsal and practice sessions.

In a child abuse/neglect scenario The child from his or her position likely has less knowledge of resources than an adult but this can also apply to some adults. So they have to make decisions from their perspective and what they know.

But a child welfare expert, a social worker or someone with legal knowledge on child protection issues is in the position to make more decisions and more informed decisions and intervene. We wouldn't expect the social services to be stoical. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. We don't always know the choices or what support services are available to us.
Sometimes we don't even know what we need or want so embroiled are we in the challenges of everyday living. Cost of living crises and political decisions mean that services, including education and health are being cut even more. So, a whole heap of anxieties and anger are piled on top of the presenting problems. Stoicism is only one life philosophy available to help with emotional and psychological resilience to potentially stressful events.

It is not services that might be 'stoical', it is the people in and around any decision-making process. But the lessening of care provision and its adverse effects can reach a tipping point, where action needs to be taken. Cue protests and strikes.

[Note again, the tendency to confuse Stoicism with lower-case stoicism, the "stiff upper-lip" personality trait which can be unhealthy.]

But in relation to the wider topic every decision can only be made with limited knowledge. Nowadays with the internet we have a huge amount of knowledge hence the dilemma in my opening post — Andrew4Handel

Already addressed. Thanks for the discussion. Time up. Take care.

We don't know whether we have control or not and cannot predict outcomes so we are in a kind of Wild West of decision making. How does stoicism square with risk taking? — Andrew4Handel

Do you think we can control our thoughts and behaviour?
What kind and degree of risk-taking?

This amounts to self blame. — Andrew4Handel

It might be but I think it's mainly about self-awareness and analysis with a view to improving.

I have always reflected intensely on my own thoughts and conduct it is the people affecting your well being that should be doing the reflecting. I should have been more proactive as a child but I couldn't see any options. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. So it seems you practised a form of stoicism from an early age. That says a lot given your circumstances. I am not sure if Stoic concepts are easy for anyone to understand and apply, far less a traumatised child. There are limitations to Stoicism and dangers in accepting it all wholesale.

We can't choose not to be harmed or not to feel harmed.
Minorities and those not in power are harmed by political decisions or indecision. Action/inaction.
Our responses in protest are being increasingly criminalised.
There is systemic abuse.

The abused are mostly not in a position to be proactive - if under absolute control. And if they think, wrongly, that they are to blame. If they see no way out.

Now, there is more awareness and knowledge about what happens behind closed doors.
Childline and support groups exist; public campaigns are run about domestic abuse.
Sometimes difficult to stay vigilant and alert.
Laws and progress made - so quickly and easily overturned.

I disagree with Epictetus:

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace.” Epictetus. Enchiridion. 8. — Stoicism

I see hope as a motivational force. Hope for the best, expect or plan for the worse...

Are the stop Oil Protestors being stoical or are they causing disruption in other peoples lives to save us all from destroying out environs and the future of peoples offspring? — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps they are being both.

I think the things we cannot change are relativist. The reasons we can't change them are situational and the claim we can't change them can be tactical. — Andrew4Handel

What do you mean by 'relativist'?

Stoicism - Accepting one's fate. Aspects of control and choice.

Embracing Our Own Fates

The concept of embracing fate, of thinking we’re releasing control of our lives, is one of the harder aspects of being a Stoic as it requires one to come to terms with aspects of their lives they may not be ready to come to terms with; the idea of the Dichotomy of Control is hard to embrace in itself simply because we do not like to think we’re not in control of our lives.

But it is not that we’re not in control of our lives, rather, it is that there are aspects within our lives for which we are fully in control and it is within these that we should embrace the opportunity to make the most out of those actions, out of those things which we do have control over, versus pouring ungodly amounts of energy into things for which we have little to no control.

The acceptance of one’s fate falls within this category. We do not have full control over our lives.
[...]
Accept the event. Embrace fate. Grow from the experience.

We can understand this concept and begin to see the powers for which we do have, specifically, the powers over our own actions. But by knowing this, by embracing what we do have control over, we have a greater ability to influence other aspects of our lives. While we may not be able to have full control over our lives, we have control over a large portion of them, namely, the actions, judgments, and beliefs we hold. By embracing these things, we can tip the scales further into our favor. Sure, we will never have full control over other aspects of our lives, but neither does anyone else.

Therefore, we should learn to lean in and embrace those that we do have control over. We should check our judgments and actions, journal daily, and investigate what we’re doing, asking penetrating questions to get to the bottom of what we’re thinking and the direction we’re attempting to move our lives into. We have far more control over these aspects of our lives than most think, and need we must learn to embrace them. Too often we create excuses for why something does or does not work out in our favor when if we were to investigate it, we could see we may have had more power over the situation than we realized and just did not take the necessary steps to advantage ourselves.

As for the things that may or may not befall us and are outside our control, we say amor fati and embrace them for in the end, we will learn from those experiences. It is through those adversities, the times where things did not go according to plan, that we will learn and grow the most. But in order to truly benefit from these times, we must embrace the obstacles, the difficulties, the adversities for which we did not anticipate.

From this, we will be better prepared for the future, for the next go around, for the rest of life. Nothing will ever be perfect, nothing will ever be fully within our control, but we can still grow and be wiser for them. Before we know it, we will no longer have the time to embrace these moments, we will no longer have the time and energy to grow. We will meet the end which we must all accept. So while we’re still here, while there is still time, let us embrace everything that comes our way.

Remember:

“Don’t hope that events will turn out the way you want, welcome events in whichever way they happen: this is the path to peace.” Epictetus. Enchiridion. 8.
— Stoicism

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing? [...] Life presents us with deep mysteries (I studied consciousness as part of a degree) I grew up in a really religious milieu. I won't be happy not knowing or not trying to know.

To me understanding why I exist and knowing how to act are fundamental. I already sit around getting fat on junk food pottering around the internet. That will end up being my existence. The path of least resistance. I see it as defeatism. — Andrew4Handel

One response to the question: "How is it possible to do the act of choosing?" is:

"How is it possible not to do the act of choosing?" when our life is full of choices.
Here we are as a result of the choices made up till now; in the key of minor or major.
Some are inconsequential, others significant.
All make up who you are and how you live your life.

If knowing how to act is fundamental, other questions arise as to the meaning and consequences of action or inaction. How to act for the best or worst when there seems to be no way of telling the outcomes. What outcome is the one you hope to achieve?

How well is your time being spent to effect the desired aim or goal?
If your current actions/decisions lead to an attitude of 'least resistance' - 'defeatism' - fatalism - why go down that path?
What you consume - in every sense - matters.
Choices made today will impact your life tomorrow; that is what we know simply by looking and learning.
Success is never guaranteed; that's another one.

One way to help make better decisions is via knowledge.
Gather the required information by effective research methods.

My main dilemma on this thread though is not morality per se but choosing out of a seeming infinity of choices and with modern technology at our finger types such of the masses of information and behaviours on the internet we have even more choice daily. — Andrew4Handel

That really shouldn't be much of a dilemma for someone who has studied at university level and gained a degree. You are taught how best to research and choose the relevant and most reliable sources.
So, this is why I question your approach to justifying your claims about s/Stoicism.

And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism.
— Andrew4Handel

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
But perhaps that is for another thread...
— Amity

I am judging by the way stoicism is applied. I am not referring to the whole philosophical school but the common usage as a psychological tool.

I am referring to the definition "the endurance of pain or hardship without the display of feelings and without complaint."

That was the top web search definition. — Andrew4Handel

I think you know better than to have made that choice. But perhaps that is your way of highlighting how or why we choose as we do to inform ourselves. Also, the importance of how certain philosophies of life are analysed, criticised and judged. The need to ask the right questions in our search and how readily we accept any 'answers'.

Your choice of top web search definition is a result of typing in 'What is stoicism?'.
From the 2 dictionary definitions, you chose the first 'stoicism' with a small 's'.
A case of cherry-picking. You know that.
The second as a condensed version of Stoicism is not much better:
an ancient Greek school of philosophy founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium. The school taught that virtue, the highest good, is based on knowledge; the wise live in harmony with the divine Reason (also identified with Fate and Providence) that governs nature, and are indifferent to the vicissitudes of fortune and to pleasure and pain.

I'll cut to the chase. Time budget an' all that.

A link for those interested:

This article highlights Stoicism’s similarities to modern mindfulness and acceptance-based CBT and its potential as an approach to building emotional resilience.

Socrates considered philosophy to be, among other things, a form of talking therapy, a sort of medicine for the mind... — Stoic Philosophy as a Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy

https://medium.com/stoicism-philosophy-as-a-way-of-life/stoic-philosophy-as-a-cognitive-behavioral-therapy-597fbeba786a

Apparently, it takes 29 minutes to read or longer to listen to. Your choice.

.

Tell me more about how you think modern stoicism is commonly applied as a psychological tool.
How is it a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism?
Where do you see this happening?

From where did you pick your chosen definition? I think it reflects the ancient view.

And Finally I think stoicism is just a cover for stifling dissent and rational criticism. — Andrew4Handel

Really? How did you come to that conclusion?
But perhaps that is for another thread...

That was probably me. — Andrew4Handel

I thought it must be. You made quite the impression and still are :sparkle:
Take care.

I was tempted to leave a "So what?" but that would be dismissive of the effort and time taken.

As social beings, we have stories. Many are about the power and control of others over us. Stories let us know we are not alone; there is a connection of minds. We live and learn.
Thanks for sharing yours.

I think these narratives hide the fact that we are here through our parents explicit choice often and it is not a neutral non ideological choice. — Andrew4Handel

Narratives don't hide the fact that we are born as a result of choice or otherwise.
That is our beginning. We are here with all our selves and masks and acts.
We are affected by others and our own thoughts.
We can blame others or we can accept that we also have flaws. We have control over our minds.
We choose what matters.

You've been around the block with these issues for years. Listening, or not, to many points of view.
What leaves you dissatisfied with all the responses?
What are you trying to achieve?

Like many, I visit the TPF have a scan and decide which topics or questions interest me enough to respond to. And that in itself is a bias. Difficulties with decision-making and anxiety I can relate to. 'Existential crises' not so much; my entry-level was wiki. I learned a bit but not the experience.
[Although I have had various critical turning points, I've not labelled them as such...]

Also, we choose the replies to questions that make sense to us; we agree/disagree/ignore or find stimulating. More questions arise. Or not. We reply. Or not. Either way, a choice has been made.

So far, there has been no reply to my post. That doesn't matter. I learned from the search and the writing up of what I found. Some of that chimes readily with others here who have shared their thoughts.

The agony or the paradox of choice. Sometimes it's about doing the best you can, given your capabilities, and knowledge at any given moment. It can be rational, intuitive and involve a final 'leap of faith'.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice — Amity

I wonder if you watched the TED Video and have any thoughts.

What struck me were the cartoons Barry Schwarz used. In particular, 2 related to your:

I do come from a fundamentalist religious back ground with regular hell and damnation sermons which I rejected in my late teens. So I have been forced into existential thought and decisions from day one.

Now as a non believer I have struggled to retain meaning after leaving the extensive rules and regulations and mandates of religion to making a new meaning from scratch. — Andrew4Handel

The cartoons are at about the 07:20 mark.
1. The 10 Commandments written in stone
2. The 10 Commandments DIY kit.

From 2, it looks like you have a blank slate, a bit like your 'making a new meaning from scratch'.
I query this.
You are far from alone in rejecting the religion you were brought up in.
However, some of the values remain; you retain the capacity to turn them over and keep those that make sense. As you grow you add your own meaning to life.

What matters to you. What matters to me is trying to keep a balance of my time, energy, emotions etc.
We all pretty much know what we should do to maintain a healthy body, mind and spirit.
The inter-relationships.
For me, and others, there can exist a gap between theory and practice.
It's easy to dish out advice to others; it's quite another thing to change one's own patterns of thoughts and behaviour. Guilty as charged.
But that's what's called being human. We are not robots. We are not perfect. We do the best we can.
We could be kinder to ourselves...and others...

I limit the time spent on here. About 30-45 mins. Almost up.
Before I go, @Andrew4Handel - How long have you been presenting the same questions on discussion forums? You remind me of someone, also called Andrew, from an OU course whose situation was as near yours as to be your twin brother. That was quite some time ago...

It seems that you have found your meaning and developed a distinct and dedicated view of life.
For me, it's been a fascinating discussion. Glad you decided to start it :sparkle:

But my general point is that every choice we make is done in a situation of infinite possibilities and without anyway to know we have done the best or correct thing.

It is something that can lead to an existential crisis. — Andrew4Handel

What constitutes an 'existential crisis'?

Synonyms and closely related terms include existential dread, existential vacuum, existential neurosis, and alienation. The various aspects associated with existential crises are sometimes divided into emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. Emotional components refer to the feelings they provoke, such as emotional pain, despair, helplessness, guilt, anxiety, and loneliness. Cognitive components encompass the problem of meaninglessness, the loss of personal values, and reflections about one's own mortality. Outwardly, existential crises often express themselves in addictions, anti-social and compulsive behavior. — Wiki - Existential crisis

Different definitions, different aspects.
So, a form of 'inner conflict'. Conflict about what?

What leads to it?
Is it a case of:

Every decision we make we don't know if we are doing the right thing and what the consequences are going to be. — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps if too many choices are available, even the simplest of decisions can be ridiculously overwhelming. Like my coming out in a sweat when choosing a television. Facing a barrage of flickering images, sounds, shapes, sizes and costs, I walked out of the store empty-handed.
I did without a television for months. People looked at me in disbelief - what on earth did I do without one? How could I exist? Let them wonder...
No crisis ensued. It wasn't an existential issue, for me anyway.

What comes first, existential feelings or the difficulties in making a decision?
Is there a circularity?
Is there any practical guidance on how best to live your life; to choose wisely?
What should you do now that you have lost your religious faith?
What, if anything, can take the place of any sense of belonging and support that might have been there?
No quick and easy answers to any isolation felt...or anxiety about the past, present and future.

It's easy to spend too much time alone in reflection. Does that help? If not, what does?
Both positive and negative views and choices can result.
The potential consequences of any choice are unknown, but many are clear.
Eat or drink too much rubbish or toxins your stomach will rebel :vomit:

When faced with so many alternatives and the need to take or make the best choice, the difficulties might indeed lead to an existential crisis.

The problem brought about by this increased freedom is sometimes referred to as the agony of choice.[93] The increased difficulty is described in Barry Schwartz’s law, which links the costs, time, and energy needed to make a well-informed choice to the number of alternatives available — Wiki - Existential crisis

The agony or the paradox of choice. Sometimes it's about doing the best you can, given your capabilities, and knowledge at any given moment. It can be rational, intuitive and involve a final 'leap of faith'.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice

I eventually bought a television. The paralysis was resolved. After a process of working out what I wanted/didn't want, what would fit and was affordable. Basically, a cost/benefit analysis and then some.
Plus a little help from friends.
Trivial compared to others who have less freedom of choice; whose agony comes from questions like:
"To eat or heat...?"
Facing a barrage of bullets and bombs from an invader - "To flee or fight?"

This is an excellent course, thank you.
The presenters/philosophers are easy on the eye and ear. Content is covered with ease and clarity.
I can hardly believe that I struggled in an earlier life with 'Validity' and 'Reliability'.
Short segments and a few questions after to check understanding. Video alongside transcript.
Key terms magically glossaried. And more...

***

For those interested, Module 1:
What is an argument is and how it is structured?
What makes an argument compelling?
How do we evaluate arguments?
What is knowledge?
What does it mean to doubt something?
What is the relationship between doubt and knowledge?

***

Worth a look even if only for the extended interviews with the likes of David Chalmers and Ronald De Sousa. (there's one from Fred d'Agostino, with whom I once studied.) — Banno

Yes, I note the list. I haven't looked yet but I will.
Thanks again. What a great find :sparkle:

There are some interesting lines we could take from Tree and Leaf, which I haven't read since early adulthood, but which was somewhat influential at the time. The heart of Tolkien's writing is that, as he writes in the preface to Rings, the tale grows in the telling. The tree has many branches, so we might wonder if there were Istari in the second age; Tolkien says no, but Amazon apparently says yes. Different branches? Does Tolkien have precedence? To say so seems to go against the tale growing in the telling. All this by way of showing that authorship does not perhaps quite grant the authority you claim. Isn't there stuff in more recent post modern writings about the text becoming free of the author on publication? The authority of author's meaning isn't what it was. — Banno

Fascinating to consider and I wonder (again) if this deserving exploration of fiction and meaning might best be served up in a separate thread. [*]
Perhaps it's already been done and not considered of philosophical value or interest. However, as things stand, the subject is lost as a piggyback, parasitical to the OP .

***

The philosophical study of fiction:

[...] The concept of fiction gives rise to a number of intriguing and complex philosophical issues, and the philosophy of fiction has now become an acknowledged part of mainstream philosophy, with a history that goes back at least to the early debates about the role of poets and dramatists found in the works of Aristotle and Plato. The issues in question broadly relate to fiction as a mode of representation—a way of describing individuals and events—that is strikingly different from representation concerned with truth, the latter long a dominant theme in philosophy. Not only is faithfulness to truth in the ordinary sense not a requirement in fiction; fiction may even depart from truth in the things it talks about, which typically include nonexistent individuals and even members of nonexistent kinds (Holmes and hobbits, for example)—see the entry on fictional entities.

[...]

The problem of saying how fiction differs from non-fiction is just one of the hard problems faced by the philosophical study of fiction. Another problem is that of specifying the sense in which a fictional sentence can be true despite misdescribing how matters stand in the world. (A sentence like “Sherlock Holmes was a brilliant detective”, for example, is not true if it is construed as a claim about brilliant detectives our world has known, but counts as true if it is stated as an answer to a quiz question “Who was Sherlock Holmes?” By contrast, “Sherlock Holmes was a plodding policeman” would count as false in this context.) But in what sense can the sentence be true, given that the world does not contain any such person as Sherlock Holmes? One promising thought is that when we hear the sentence as genuinely true we regard it as elliptical for something like “In the Holmes stories, Sherlock Holmes was a brilliant detective”. On this suggestion it is the truth of the latter prefixed sentence that provides the sense in which “Sherlock Holmes was a brilliant detective” counts as true. But even if this is right, what still needs explaining is what it is for such a prefixed sentence to be true. What makes “In the Holmes stories, Sherlock Holmes was a brilliant detective” true (but not “In the Holmes stories, Sherlock Holmes was a plodding policeman”), when there never was such a person as Sherlock Holmes? In addition to the problem of how to understand the notion of truth in a work of fiction, there is also a deep puzzle about the way we respond emotionally to such truths. When we engage with fiction, we often do so at a highly specific emotional level—we may not only be enthralled by elements of the plot but also affected by what befalls particular characters. Thus, we may find ourselves feeling pity for Anna Karenina as we near the end of Tolstoy’s novel because we are aware of Anna’s suffering. But the claim that we pity Anna Karenina is deeply puzzling: we know there is no Anna Karenina, and that it is only true in Tolstoy’s novel that Anna Karenina is suffering, so how can there be genuine pity for Anna? This is the so-called paradox of fiction, one of a batch of puzzles that have been raised in the philosophy of fiction about our engagement with works of fiction. These are by no means the only philosophical questions thrown up by fiction. In fact, the paradox of fiction immediately suggests others... — Fiction - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) -

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fiction/

[*]
I understand the difficulties of starting a new thread - and I don't know if it would even be worthwhile.
A cold start can lose the impetus, the enthusiasm.
I wish there was a better way to follow the different strands. Dry philosophical theory means more, to me, when sauced up flavoured by TPF participants - as has been done here.
Thanks again.

Exceptional substantive and well-structured responses :up:
The turn to fiction and the questions surrounding it and reality...thought-provoking.
So many fascinating strands to follow...perhaps best explored in another thread.
Thanks to all :sparkle:

There are all kinds of story-tellers. Unfortunately, some in powerful positions adversely affecting our lives with their apparently believable lies.
As @Tom Storm said earlier:

If the real is so elusive, so difficult to establish, then many of us will continue to be seduced by the glib certainties of extremists, carpetbaggers, shills and sophists.

You read a story by Chekhov or Raymond Carver -- if you're a teenager in a crappy English class, you just say wtf? But if you're an adult with some experience, some curiosity about the world, some sensitivity maybe?, you might reflect on the story and on the lives we lead and have something like insight. The truth you find is not stated in what you read. — Srap Tasmaner

Hmm. This is near ageism. It is not so much the quantity of years but the quality of life, thinking and ability to consider own life/reality in relation to others. Storytelling does that from an early age.

I can identify with that teenager in a crappy English class. Why was it such a bad experience?
Subject matter and teacher, perhaps. Not knowing the requirements to pass an English exam.
An inspirational and encouraging teacher saved my day. I am still learning.

Some texts can be considered more revelatory than others, conveying essential or foundational truths.
Think the Bible...it is at least a two-way process of divination. Drawing out thoughts.

Some of this is just Moore thumbing her nose at the poetry-reading public, oddly, because she was famous for including snippets of newspaper and magazine articles in her poems. She was the oddest of ducks. — Srap Tasmaner

I like this poet already! I had a quick look and smile at your use of 'oddest' and 'ducks'.
Could be 'queerest'. What has a poet's sexuality or gender to do with their acceptance? Depends on the culture and time. Realities within realities.

Earlier I noted a quote within the poem:

“literalists of
the imagination” — poets.org, first published 1919

A quick search took me to this:
https://zoboko.com/text/8m5ynl4q/why-poetry/8
It uses MM's poem and 'The Wasteland' to illustrate problems of education; young readers and creators.
The way poetry is taught is so important. Class can kill any seeds of creativity.

***
Taking snippets from other sources.
Intertextuality.
Returning to the Bible. How many pieces of truth have been taken and transplanted into another reality?
I'm reminded of Goethe and Faust's attempt at translating:
'In the Beginning was the Word'. It didn't sit right with him.
It was transformed to: In the beginning, was the act or deed ( as far as memory goes)
More could be said...

***

It's the spirit in which Seamus Heaney said poetry shows us "a glimpsed alternative," and Geoffrey Hill said a poem must be "a fortress of the imagination." Creative, imaginative thinking ought to be contagious, just as rigorous thought ought to be, as when Wittgenstein said, "I should not wish to have spared anyone the trouble of thinking." — Srap Tasmaner

'The truth you find is not stated in what you read'.

I agree with this. Kinda.
The truth Truths are not always directly stated; you have to find or feel the connection and meaning, that is if you want to. Some are happy with the 'finds' pronounced in dogmatic texts; no real thought required.
The puzzling worlds of philosophy and fiction are interrelated as in Goethe...and yes, even in TPF.
Inter-reality. A heady combination :sparkle:

There is no truth to the sentences in fiction, so there is no truth to preserve, but the sentences can still be related to one another logically. — Srap Tasmaner

I would say that sentences in fiction communicate truths. The story contains answers to anyone asking questions, such as:

Did Pippin accompany Frodo and Sam to Mount Doom? That question is not about any persons or places or travel anyone undertook, not really — Srap Tasmaner

Well, yes it is. It is really about what happens in the story whether it is fictitious or not.

Another kind of truth about reality can be found in the likes of Charles Dickens.
In contrast to a fictional truth, this might be termed a 'genuine' truth. His stories present moral or political truths some readers can relate to. Or others can become more aware of e.g. poverty and social conditions.

If we want to say things that are genuinely true and false about fiction in the same way we say them about objects we do find in the world, then we must do this complicated double analysis, — Srap Tasmaner

I'm not sure that is necessary.
It reminds me of the poem you posted: 'Poetry' by Marianne Moore.
Switch from 'Poetry' to 'Philosophy'.

The longer version, with the indentation butchered by our software:

Poetry Philosophy

I too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond all this fiddle.
Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one discovers that there is in
it after all, a place for the genuine.
Hands that can grasp, eyes
that can dilate, hair that can rise
if it must, these things are important not because a

high-sounding interpretation can be put upon them but because they are
useful; when they become so derivative as to become unintelligible, the
same thing may be said for all of us—that we
do not admire what
we cannot understand. The bat,
holding on upside down or in quest of something to

eat, elephants pushing, a wild horse taking a roll, a tireless wolf under
a tree, the immovable critic twinkling his skin like a horse that feels a flea, the base—
ball fan, the statistician—case after case
could be cited did
one wish it; nor is it valid
to discriminate against “business documents and

school-books”; all these phenomena are important. One must make a distinction
however: when dragged into prominence by half poets philosophers , the result is not poetry, philosophy
nor till the autocrats among us can be
“literalists of
the imagination”—above
insolence and triviality and can present

for inspection, imaginary gardens with real toads in them, shall we have
it. In the meantime, if you demand on the one hand, in defiance of their opinion—
the raw material of poetry philosophy in
all its rawness, and
that which is on the other hand,
genuine, then you are interested in poetry. philosophy.
— poets.org, first published 1919

Imaginary gardens with real toads in them.

What shall we say about that? — Srap Tasmaner

I bolded your question to which I attempted a response. Still waiting for your reply...then again:
'There are things that are important beyond all this fiddle'.

There's some pretty sophisticated stuff going on when we talk about fiction, but it's all obscured by familiarity. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps any 'sophisticated stuff' is not obscured so much as not being necessary when it comes to talking about fiction. Familiarity with fiction lies in the basic telling, showing, listening and reading of stories. Different cultures will have different ways and experiences depending on what has been open to them. Language and expression will vary according to the message and how best it might be transported or transmitted to others.

There is the universal and the particular.
Highlighting a particular reality at a certain time can have the effect of expanding our knowledge or understanding of the universal. Of what it is to be human...actors alone or together at a stage of life.
Real wrongs or rights shared.
Authors give voice to those who don't have one...yet.

Examples here:

Fiction can shed light on our shared humanity, as long as it’s respectful and honest. Hephzibah Anderson speaks to the celebrated authors who are creating powerful ‘imaginative ventriloquism’.
[...]
O’Brien hopes that there will, among the thousands of women who’ve been captured, be an Electra who eventually tells her own story in her own words. She’s alluding, of course to the Greek mythological heroine, a pointed reference since she drew, in her writing of Girl, on a long admiration of the way that Greek drama combines simplicity with gravity.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200310-how-to-tell-other-peoples-stories

And fundamentally I think all of this is to one side of issues in logic and ontology. — Srap Tasmaner

I don't understand what you mean. Please explain, thanks.

I'll go you one better. — Srap Tasmaner

That you did :up:
Thanks for the introduction to Marianne Moore. Strange how I'd heard of Emily Dickinson but not MM.

The short version goes like this:

I too, dislike it.

The longer version, with the indentation butchered by our software: — Srap Tasmaner

It seems she is in agreement with people who don't like poetry or a certain kind of poem.
Hooked, we wonder who and why...or at least I do...

MM's poem uses indentations; not always appreciated or understood by others and removed by editors.

Imaginary gardens with real toads in them.

What shall we say about that? — Srap Tasmaner

Good question. I'd be interested to hear what you and others think.
I don't know that I can say anything without context; related to other lines and the poet's mind.
But as a stand-alone, it has relevance to this thread; the real, the imagined and the overlap.

My mind stops still at:

“literalists of
the imagination” — poets.org, first published 1919

What is that about? I haven't a clue...
Is this a criticism of the 'toads'; the anal-ytical 'autocrats' and 'half poets' who trivialise poetry?
They take words too literally. Too 'base'?
Is MM saying that they should view the imagination as real? To be based on what matters to the poet - a sense of the genuine? MM's poetry joins a rawness of the raw reality with a real sensitivity...
Phenomena are important because they are 'useful'.

Back to the practical. A poetic pragmatism.
A melding of the physical form, mental content and spiritual feel.
From the external to the internal and back again.
Words are important not merely as objects in themselves but are used to show or bring life to things. Musically. Things that matter to us.
The concrete toads v abstract thoughts, imaginary gardens or real beliefs...
All real.

Story Robert Creeley tells — didn't happen to him but another poet, I forget who — that after a reading someone from the audience came up to ask our poet about something he read, "Was that a real poem, or did you make it up yourself?"
— Srap Tasmaner

I like that image. It's both. It lies in the overlap of 2 intersecting Venn circles, the real and the imaginary. — Amity

@Srap Tasmaner et al.
Why the lack of response to this amazing insight? :chin:

:victory: :cool:

Btw, the gummies are strawberry ("fields") and blueberry ("meanies") flavored, 65 mg each. :yum: — 180 Proof

Oh, naughty sweet tooth :mask: I used to love wine gums to death :love:
Just wondering about your choice of vino.
Cairn O' Mhor produce strawberry and blueberry wine, sparkly and one called 'Gangs wi' Haggis' :party:

:cool:
Thanks for sharing. My ears aren't so good that I can tell much of a difference between all the remixes.
But I enjoyed listening to your picks and the YouTube run-on to a song I hadn't heard before:


Interesting to read different interpretations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_Your_Bird_Can_Sing

Your 'gummies' - fruit gums? :chin:

Story Robert Creeley tells — didn't happen to him but another poet, I forget who — that after a reading someone from the audience came up to ask our poet about something he read, "Was that a real poem, or did you make it up yourself?" — Srap Tasmaner

I like that image. It's both. It lies in the overlap of 2 intersecting Venn circles, the real and the imaginary.

Something I am wondering about, from your article and others across the interwebs, is the moral dimension of poetry being emphasized. — Moliere

Grateful if you could point me to the article in question and any others you found where the moral dimension is emphasised. My memory isn't as good as it was and I've posted so much on here.

But I wonder about poetry's supposed moral educational propensities — Moliere

As do I. There's a lot more to poetry than meets the eye. I can't remember if we discussed the function of poetry but a quick search throws up this:
https://englishliterature.net/notes/s-t-coleridge-function-of-poetry

I'm taking some time out now to pursue other interests/projects/distractions!
However, will still follow this most intriguing discussion. Thanks for starting and maintaining it so well. :sparkle:

That was a pleasure to listen to... — Moliere

I didn't manage a close listen to all of it but look forward to doing that when I have more time.
Thanks, again, to @Tom Storm for the find on YouTube.

'As I noted previously...' - a standard repetitive response that would seem to serve you well.
I'll leave it here.

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts. — T Clark

Really?! Are you sure that is the real reason you dismiss my questions and describe them so?

If you don't analyze my motivations, I won't analyze yours. — T Clark

No deal. The driving force behind anyone's OP is always of interest to me.