I’m going to preface my participation here by saying that I’m not here to debate, but to discuss...

A cube of clay and a sphere of clay and a pyramid of clay can all be made of the same clay. A cube isn't a sphere, and a sphere isn't a pyramid. Nevertheless, one and the same lump of clay can be a cube, then a sphere, then a pyramid. So....God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit can all be one and the same mind, even if they have incompatible properties. — Bartricks

What this example demonstrates is that these concepts can all be constructed from the same mind, not that they can BE the same mind - mind being the clay, and ‘being’ occurring in time. But I think I follow what you’re trying to say. The important word here, in association with being, is ‘then’. Interestingly, a lump of clay can also BE three different cubes, all with some properties the same, and some different, and the fact that one and the same lump of clay can specifically be a ‘cube’, then a ‘sphere’, then a ‘pyramid’ doesn’t preclude the fact that it can also BE none of the above - a cylindrical prism, for instance.

That's not the only way a reconciliation could be achieved either. One and the same thing can simultaneously answer to different descriptions (though not incompatible descriptions). Once more: The David, a sculpture by Michelangelo and a giant lump of marble in Florence are all one and the same thing under different descriptions. So, God and Jesus and the Holy spirit could all be one and the same thing under different descriptions. — Bartricks

Okay, this one is about perceived potential, which gets us away from the temporal issue and allows for simultaneity. It’s about the concepts, a way of perceiving the material and sharing that perceived potential using discourse. It is not, however, about being, but rather about potentially being perceived as. Notice how your language has changed here from ‘can be’ to ‘could be’. There is an uncertainty here, and loudly dismissing as ‘stupid’ those who don’t perceive this potential is simply attempting to conceal the fact that it could also be described differently. You could empirically demonstrate that a giant lump of marble can’t BE a giant lump of clay (so long as the distinction between ‘marble’ and ‘clay’ is understood), but the relation between this giant lump of marble and the names ‘David’ or ‘Michelangelo’ are a matter of culturally constructed discourse, not of empirical evidence or reason.

Without this historical and cultural discourse to map the way, we can relate to the potential in perceiving this lump of marble by recognising shared qualities of human experience - but the relations lack structure, and so the process feels a bit like making shit up - hypothesising about their relations to random ideas. Except that you still have a particularly-shaped lump of marble, empirically evident, which you can always return to. But ‘God’, ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Holy spirit’ are all descriptions of perceived potential, and have no empirical foundation. Without the particular religious discourse, you’re effectively hypothesising about the relations between ideas and these shared qualities of human experience.

So, for all your ‘solid’ examples, you should acknowledge that all you have available to build on are shared qualities of human experience in relation to ideas. Religious discourse is one way to map this, but not the only way. And when it fails to find agreement, then cubes of clay and marble sculptures aren’t necessarily going to give you the foundation you need. Not like in mathematics.

I have also pointed out - and this is metaphysically interesting and challenges what many theists think about God - that God will not have any properties essentially, for God is all powerful and thus does not 'have' to have any property. Thus any property the person of God has, he does not have to have. — Bartricks

Here you may need to clarify: are you discussing ‘God’ as a being, as a concept, or as an idea?

This might have been an interesting philosophical discussion, if anyone except @Fooloso4 and the OP were willing to stick to the topic. Unfortunately, there is so much name calling, posturing, ad hominem attacks, metaphorical language and isolated statements of faith that it hardly seems worth engaging.

In fact, there are a number of posters on this thread who are actively trying to shut down the discussion, claiming there is no issue to be discussed at all. FWIW I think there is a discussion, but there seems to be no traction here.

Pity.

The History of Philosophy has been rife with racism, sexism, misogyny, nationalism , pro slavery sentiment, elitism xenophobia etc. So you seem to have just delegitimized all of philosophy. — Andrew4Handel

Philosophy’s history may be rife with bias and limited thinking, but that doesn’t mean that this is what philosophy is. I see it as a work in progress to develop awareness of the lack of knowledge that limits our capacity for wisdom, and to continually restructure our methodologies to at least account for our limitations, if not strive beyond them.

So I don’t believe I’m delegitimising all of philosophy at all, just placing all claims within the context of wisdom - which is what I believe ‘doing philosophy’ is.

I believe that philosophy is originally defined as the love of knowledge.
So following from this, censorship or sentiment appears to have no place in philosophy, as well as personal bias.
Knowledge does not equate to preferences or sentiment.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans"

Should this claim be discussed or censored? I feel that philosophy is the last place anywhere where claim should be censored or criticised politically.

I feel that philosophy has often been ruined by bias, personal prejudice, censorship among other things.
Philosophers are the people in the best position to criticise public discourses and not to become enmeshed in them. — Andrew4Handel

First of all, I believe that philosophy is originally defined as the love of wisdom, which is not identical to knowledge. Wisdom is inclusive of recognising and structuring a lack of knowledge, and so philosophical discussions would identify the context of personal bias and ignorance that motivates such a claim as “Chinese people are inferior to Europeans”, rather than admit it into philosophical discussion as it stands.

Censorship comes down to recognising this as a legitimate claim, and I think a claim like this has no place in philosophical discussion except as an example of bias or personal prejudice (as it is here). If anyone is making such a claim themselves within a philosophical discussion, then they can expect it to be criticised and summarily dismissed.

Wisdom does not equate to preferences or sentiment either, but is nevertheless conscious of them as structural conditions for both knowledge and its lack.

It seems to me that the misunderstanding lies in the unwarranted attempt to interpret Platonic texts as "speculations" which can only lead to nihilism. The OP is about how Platonists view the dialogues, not their detractors. — Apollodorus

I don’t doubt that’s how it would seem to you. I’m making an observation on how Platonists view the dialogues, as you’ve outlined here. I’m just not commenting from within Platonism.

And I’m not interpreting Platonic texts as ‘speculations’. I’m saying that there are elements of the dialogues that even Socrates admits as speculation, which Platonism assumes, reifies, and on which their theory is constructed. That recognising them as speculation may ultimately lead to contemplating nihilism is not entirely unwarranted, but that’s beside the point.

My point is that Platonists appear to mistake the dialogues themselves (or Socrates’ voice) for truth, not as an instantiated demonstration of ‘the way’ to truth. And I’m suggesting that the mistake is a common one in relation to ancient sacred texts and/or heuristic devices within them.

You’ve already assumed that this hedonic value system exists. It’s like asking: does ‘God’ exist because we look for him, or do we look for ‘God’ because he exists?
— Possibility

Not so. I clearly didn't assume the existence of any hedonic or nonhedonic value system, hence the question, do things have value because they make us happy or do things make us happy because they have value?

If things have value because they make us happy then all value, even purportedly nonhedonic ones, ultimately end up being about happiness/suffering - hedonism then pervades everything we think/say/do, hedonism subsumes all there is.

On the other hand, if things make us happy because they have value, hedonism is either an erroneous idea or an incomplete one for there must exist a nonhedonic system of values which supersedes the value of happiness/suffering. — TheMadFool

But you can’t deny that the system exists, so it’s only the relational structure between happiness and value that is in question here. You can’t answer this question solely through introspection, though, because there is no introspective position in which what makes us happy does not have value for us. Whereas a position does exist in which what we value does not make us happy, even if we can recall that it did, once.

It isn’t that hedonism is an erroneous or incomplete idea, then, but a limited one. And it isn’t that a nonhedonic system of values supersedes the value of happiness/suffering, but that hedonism is one aspect of a more complex value system - one that extends beyond ‘us’.

The ways in which we make sense of our world are inherently affective and hedonic
— Possibility

That we do something from habit - one that seems to have been widely prevalent and passed down from parent to offspring not to mention horizontally in worldwide communities - doesn't make it right. Wouldn't that be the fallacy of appeal to tradition? In addition, such a stance begs the question; after all, the question is whether hedonism is a standalone value system that, in a sense, is not a proxy for a value system that's the real McCoy so to speak but one which is concealed for reasons I, as of the moment, can't fathom. Speculative, yes, but not, in my humble opinion, beyond the realm of possibility. — TheMadFool

I’m not talking about habit here, and I’m not talking about what’s right. I’m talking about the basic informative process of an organism. Regardless of what we think, we act based on how we feel and on what benefits the system. It’s the process of informing how we feel - constructing our value systems in such a way that what makes us happy is intertwined with the apparent happiness of ourselves, our parents/offspring, as well as the wider communities with whom we interact - that complicates this hedonic value system.

A child learns the value structures of language initially from their parents, for instance, in differentiating pleasurable interactions by associated sound and movement patterns. All of our value structures are built on this basic ‘hedonic’ system, and all of our intentionality reduces to the ongoing affective state of the organism - to an allocation of attention and effort based on pleasure/displeasure and arousal. That’s not to say that we are ruled by affect or emotion, but rather that affect (an interaction of pleasure/displeasure and arousal) is the base language of consciousness.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the existence of an hedonic value system does not preclude the existence of a nonhedonic value system - or vice versa.

Platonism-Aristotleanism :point: reification fallacies abound (re: "transcendent" Forms, The Good, The One, Souls, Final Causes).

Antidote (pharmakon): Laozi-Zhaungzi ... or Pyrrho-Sextus Empiricus & Epicurus-Lucretius ... or Spinoza-Nietzsche & Zapffe-Camus ...

Just my two drachmas. — 180 Proof

I’m inclined to agree with you. There seems to me to be a misunderstanding here with regard to Plato’s dialogues - taking Socrates’ speculations as the core philosophical theory, rather than following the process or ‘way’ demonstrated by the dialogues themselves. IMHO Taoism and - dare I say it - Christianity make similar errors.

I think beauty is more about understanding than visual sense, but we approach it at least initially through the visual sense, through appearance. We share beauty with others not just through appearance, though, but also by talking about it - expressing judgements or opinions, describing affected experiences, etc.

Beauty is connected to intentionality or purposiveness. Is a non-deliberate brush stroke less beautiful than a deliberate one? Is the purpose of each brush stroke to impose order or to reflect it? Kant explores this in his third Critique, particularly Aesthetics.

Art is traditionally considered ‘beautiful’ only to the extent that the state of engaging with it can align with existing concepts of the mind. Where art challenges conceptual structures with an idea, there is often a sense of discomfort, but this also engages the mind, and at a higher level. Is it then still beautiful? It seems only to the extent that we have sufficient information to accommodate a paradigm shift, and to re-establish a sense of aligning the experience with our (adjusted) conceptual structures.

Modern art questions whether the making of art should challenge or reinforce our conceptual structure of beauty within a broader aesthetic context (inclusive of the sublime), and to what extent.

From another angle, physicist/philosopher Carlo Rovelli points out that the disorder we perceive in the world (entropy) is on account of our ignorance - a ‘blurring’ of perspective, or lack of understanding reality at a microscopic level.

I don't agree; lack of action is a kind of action, and in any case suspension of judgement does not entail that one would have no ideas that could be followed; followed without judging them true or false or even likely to be true or false, but just to see where they lead. Action can be based merely on desire to do something, and of course there will always be expectation. But I would draw a distinction between expectation, which is found also in animals and judgement or belief self-consciously held.

Provisional hypotheses yield predictions based on drawing analogies (abductive reasoning) with what has been observed in the past. You might argue that one would be relying upon what others have recorded, which is true, and that one would be relying upon faith in the truth of what they have recorded, but that would be false. Anything and everything can be provisionally accepted without committing to any judgement as to its truth.

Having said that, I am not arguing that people always or even very often suspend judgement like that, but I am just pointing to what is possible not what is common. To anticipate another possible objection, it's also true that in everything we must have faith in our memories; we have to act on the basis of what they give us, but this is not any kind of consciously adopted faith, which is what I have been concerned with; it is entirely instinctive; even animals do it. — Janus

I can’t disagree with you here. I’m not talking about any commitment, though - just acknowledging a dimensionally structural difference between action, prediction and idea.

The line between action and lack of action (wu-wei) is conceptual, as is the line between expectation and judgement, even between faith and doubt. Where we draw them is based on the distinction of consciousness, which is uncertain - ideologically, probabilistically or provisionally determined by conceptual structures.

I think we need to recognise the implications of this in terms of science, logic and religion. Statements structured within one limited conceptual system do not readily convert to another without loss of information. Theories or claims isolated from their progress through scientific or logical methodology lack a sense of the provisional certainty structured within these systems. Likewise, statements of faith isolated from certain metaphysical structures of ‘truth’ (as constructed by religious discourse) rarely have any standing outside of it, and are designed to resist predictability or empirical testing. This is about how we bracket out uncertainty using language.

Personally, what I’m looking for is a methodological device or discourse that doesn’t need to ‘switch gauges’, but rather enables us to navigate between these human systems of provisional or ideological certainty without loss of information. Or at least to recognise and account for the limitations of each approach within a broader methodology.

I think this is where philosophy needs to be right now - in the dimensional space of uncertainty that dissolves the boundaries between science, logic and religion. Arguing for the benevolence of ‘science’ seems important right now, but it’s not the role of philosophy to throw its support behind a particular system here. It only demonstrates a weakness in one’s understanding, a resistance to information that threatens their own sense of provisional certainty.

I agree that faith is not the absence of doubt or reason, but it is held in the absence of what we would count as evidence (i.e. empirical evidence). That said, empirical evidence does not amount (always at least) to certainty, so it could be said that all substantive (as opposed to tautological) belief is held in the absence of certainty.

One response to uncertainty (lack of definitive evidence or proof) is to suspend judgement entirely. Another response is to adopt provisional hypotheses. And another is to believe despite the absence of evidence; and this last is to have faith. — Janus

Only the last of these three options can be acted upon. You cannot act on entirely suspended judgement. Provisional hypotheses enable you to run controlled experiments, but you still need to make a prediction - this requires faith, and is the only way to achieve empirical evidence, let alone certainty.

First of all, I think that clinging to a thwarted 400 year old ideal is unproductive. Let it go. You won’t achieve peace by citing past injuries. Or perhaps it is that you’re not looking for peace, but for capitulation. Or will an official apology suffice?

I disagree that science continues to be ‘the injured party’(‘but they started it!’), and I also disagree that science has the answer - it simply has a plausible theory, a way forward. Science has claimed ‘limitless clean energy’ before and been wrong, and has claimed ‘the solution’ before and caused irreparable damage, so anything that sounds too good to be true and relies on claims of singularity or infinity needs to be recognised as an ideology: an affected (positive/negative) spin from a limited perspective on available data. The ‘answer’ will not come until science takes moral responsibility for conclusions drawn from research data, and agrees to work with the ideologue through ethics, arts, humanities, metaphysics and communications - not pander to prevalent ideology, but help to critically examine and restructure our ideological motives so that we are more self-aware and sceptical consumers of information.

When science claims to be ‘neutral’ information, then it’s indistinguishable from fake news, and all science can do is add to the noise. Instead, science is responsible for presenting ‘needed’ information - rendered as a system-wide distribution of attention and effort in relation to time. A way forward. Not the only way forward, nor the ‘best’ by any and all standards, let alone the objective truth. And the more narrowly defined its system, the more ignorant its claim.

We can do this precisely because the implications of science can legitimately be limited to that which is necessary to survival, staring with magma energy - which is the only source of energy large, constant and concentrated enough to meet our needs. If we don't harness magma energy, we cannot survive; and so it is the existential necessity to which we can agree, not science as an ideology per se. — counterpunch

This is a case in point. You’re talking about survival of humanity in our current state of energy consumption. It’s a tantalisingly simple solution for a very limited problem, but is it the right one? For you, yes, it probably seems ideal, and will allow you to continue consuming energy with impunity or this horrible sense that we’re hastening our extinction, or at least our discomfort. But what about the next generation, or the one after that? How much do we really know about the relationship between magma energy and gravity or solar orbital structures? Or even between magma energy and meteorological patterns? The urgency with which we ‘need’ a solution, its perceived significance or the potential it appears to offer has too often come back to bite us in the ass. How do we allocate sufficient attention and effort to understand beyond the immediate need for survival to the bigger ecological picture?

But apparently the eventual ‘bite’ won’t be science’s fault - it will be humanity’s fault for choosing the easy fix without considering the broader implications that scientists currently dismiss as ‘not science’ because they can’t yet be empirically tested. And you’ll be long dead by then and won’t give a rat’s.

In a dynamic system built on a limited relation to both energy and time (and it IS limited), simply unlocking additional sources only hastens self-destruction - but it just depends on how narrowly you choose to perceive the system. But what do I know? I’m not a scientist.

I think the reason we have the knowledge and technology to solve the climate and ecological crisis - but don't apply it, is the ubiquity and exclusive authority of ideological bases of analysis - and what I'm trying to do is get people to look beyond the battlements of ideology to a scientific understanding of reality, because in those terms, it's a relatively simple problem to solve. — counterpunch

I think this highlights the main problem here - and bear with me, because this is an initial observation and will not be well articulated. A ‘scientific understanding of reality’ is not beyond the battlements of ideology at all - it is simply ignorant of it. What you describe sounds like a relatively simple solution because it fails to recognise the ideological bases of analysis that convert what we know, think and feel into what we do. Humanity does not act from reasoning, but from a system-wide distribution of energy parsed as attention and effort, that is largely determined by affect and ideology - despite how rational we think we are. Any understanding of reality will need to understand and align with this system in order to change how humanity acts on a large scale.

Except a ‘scientific understanding of reality’ has deliberately excluded the affected or ideological observer. So it cannot understand this aspect of reality, much less align with it.

Science is not neutral; rather it is the information needed to work out what to do next.
— Banno

If science is the information needed to work out what to do next, then it is neutral. Like actionable intelligence, like the gun, needed information is just a thing, as is unneeded information, or wrong information. It all boils down to the people using or failing to use it. — James Riley

There is no point in human experience at which information exists unaffected, except as meaningless noise. How do you think we distinguish between needed and unneeded information? If science is needed information, how can it then be neutral?

Science is our limited capacity to reliably describe the ongoing distribution of attention and effort within a system, of which the observer is always the missing aspect.

...and here's the thrust of the argument, so far as there is one:

Yes, the application of science has brought about much that is unwanted. Nevertheless, our best chance at ameliorating these results lies not in rejecting science but in following it. — Banno

...cautiously, mindful of the qualitative and affective limitations we set in pursuit of illusions of certainty.

But the story is such that what one takes from it the that one should blindly and unquestionably obey what God commands. — Fooloso4

That’s not my takeaway, but then I’m not putting reason aside in my interpretation. I don’t believe that ‘God commands’ anything - we are only ever interpreting from a limited perspective.

If he brought reason to the relationship he would have baulked and challenged God. He actually did this later when God was ready to wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah. — Fooloso4

With Sodom (which was discussed significantly before Isaac, not after) he neither baulked nor challenged, but respectfully questioned, simulated and hypothesised - conscious that he may not yet have all the facts. And there was no place in this discussion for his own fears, desires or personal opinions. Take away the mythical element, and isn’t this reason? And does it always need to be verbalised?

Says who?
— Possibility

I provided the reference. Proverbs says "wisdom is fear of the Lord". — Fooloso4

Different author. Much later cultural context. And ‘fear’ here is deference - to the infinite significance of an existence/understanding beyond your own. Take away the personification, and there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about this kind of fear.

But nevertheless, believing in the face of contrary facts is not rational, and not praiseworthy. But unfortunately common. Would you agree to that? — Banno

Yes, I’d agree to that - and actively involved in the cultural structures of both science and religion, unfortunately.

You seem to be saying that we have faith in the experimental method, and in our own abilities to rationally understand, and that these things we cannot be certain of. If that is what you are saying I agree, but although faith operates in the absence of certainty, I would still maintain that there is a distinction between believing and acting in the absence of empirical evidence, and believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. Of course a Christian can claim that the bible constitutes evidence, but it seems clear that it cannot constitute what could be counted as empirical evidence. — Janus

Personally, I think faith in our own abilities to rationally understand everything is as misplaced as faith in the bible, but that’s another discussion. Suffice to say that the bible no more counts as empirical evidence than our current level of rational understanding.

I agree that there is a distinction between acting in the absence and acting on the basis of empirical evidence. The first requires faith, the second does not. But we rarely trouble our conscious thoughts with believing and acting on the basis of empirical evidence, do we?

If I am to discuss a story I take the story as it is written. If I read in a book:"Harry said" then I can safely say that according to the book this is what Harry said. If the book is a novel then the question of whether or not it was actually said goes no further. If the book purports to be historically accurate then whether Harry said this or if there even is a Harry comes into question. I do not read Genesis as history, and so the question of whether God said this goes no further than the story. I do, however, read it as a story about belief and faith. — Fooloso4

About an author’s perspective on belief and faith, read in the context of a culture that equates worship with living sacrifice - understanding ‘God’ in exploring the threshold between life and death. It’s a mythical journey that Abraham takes here. The question of whether he ought to make the journey is irrelevant - as a long-dead ancestor he’s a character in a story, a heuristic device, not a moral being in the world.

But if I grant that it was a misunderstanding this still points to the danger. Many horrendous things are done because it is believed that this is God's will. In order to distinguish between what should and should not be done as a matter of faith we must turn to reason. — Fooloso4

Agreed. It is reason that Abraham brings to the relationship.

Perhaps that is true of some "we", but in the Jewish tradition God is ineffable. Faith is a matter of keeping His commandments. — Fooloso4

I’m not defending a particular tradition. I think most religious and atheistic traditions misinterpret faith within an illusion of certainty.

Since God says that Abram loved his son (22:2), "your son, your only son" (22:12) his desire would be to keep him alive. His proper relationship with God should be one of fear (22:12) — Fooloso4

Says who? The amount of times the words ‘do not be afraid’ is attributed directly to ‘God’ would dispute this.

We are given no indication that he doubted, but even if he did, he was going to carry out the commandment. — Fooloso4

Yes, we are - Abraham said ‘God will provide the offering’. This is no less certain than the implied intention derived from his actions. Be mindful of ‘reasonable’ assumptions - the point here in understanding faith is to recognise the lack of certainty either way.

My point in pursuing this is to show that faith is neither exclusive to religion, nor the absence of either doubt nor reason, but certainty. It may be slightly tangential, but how we respond to uncertainty is nevertheless important to understand in this discussion ‘in praise of science’.

I do think that it’s against human sacrifice, but I don’t think the warning is only against this practice, but warns more generally against blind faith. Abraham’s assurance to his son that ‘God will provide’ is often portrayed as blind faith, but I see this as the doubt in Abraham’s mind (in light of the promises made to him) that keeps his eyes open to an alternative (more accurate) interpretation of what was asked of him.

There is in the story no indication of a misunderstanding:

Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” (Genesis 22:2)

Abram hid what he was about to do from Isaac and his servants. — Fooloso4

We too readily assume that what is written as what ‘God said’ is in fact what God actually said, as if the words were God’s actual words. Given that we have yet to confirm this is even possible (and much reason to doubt), why do we accept this without question?

The simple fact that what is apparently commanded here is not what transpired, despite Abram following it to the letter, is indication enough for me that Abraham misunderstood what (if anything) was asked of him.

It is not about God, it is about faith in God, and it is god who told him to do this. — Fooloso4

No, it is about faith in what we think God is. And it is what Abraham thought was God who seemed to him to communicate this request. It was also what Abraham thought was God who intervened and provided an alternative sacrifice, apparently justifying the error as a test.

Certainty is a dangerous thing.

Some see this as exemplary, but others look at this example and recoil. It is not simply a matter of the absence of certainty. It is contrary to what we hold most dear. It is shocking and disturbing that he would have obeyed. Are you not certain that it would have been wrong to do this? — Fooloso4

I am not Abraham. It would have been wrong for me to do this, knowing what I know. But what is wrong for Abraham is to put his own fears and desires ahead of his relation to an infinitely significant existence, of which he was aware beyond conception. It’s only disturbing when we assume the command was beyond doubt. Abraham never assumed this.

Abraham's sacrifice of his son is the paradigm of faith in God. It is also the paradigm of everything that is wrong with such faith, the willingness to sacrifice everything. — Fooloso4

The story of Abraham sacrificing his son was an illustration of faith in an early (mis)understanding of God. It’s not about sacrifice (that’s just the cultural context) and it’s not about God - it’s about having the courage not only to act in the absence of certainty, but to continually critique and correct erroneous beliefs in the light of an ever-present doubt.

My teenage daughter recently reached that point of nihilism in her philosophical journey, and it surprised me how suddenly and visibly she was shaken by it. I’ve always considered nihilism to be a journey through rather than a philosophical position. So I pointed out a paragraph from Wikipedia on Nietzsche that helped me to recognise this:

Nietzsche approached the problem of nihilism as a deeply personal one, stating that this problem of the modern world had "become conscious" in him. Furthermore, he emphasized the danger of nihilism and the possibilities it offers, as seen in his statement that "I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism's] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes a master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!" According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation on which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure. — Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’

I think part of dealing with these ‘philosophical dangers’ is understanding that philosophical ‘isms’ do not define us.

Interesting response. I can relate to what you say about self-reflection. I get the sense that it’s about each of us working towards a balance between self-reflection and faithful action. Self-reflection without definitive action is fruitless; definitive action without self-reflection is ignorant.

As for your alternate questions, might I suggest that the difficulty in obtaining answers may have something to do with not fully understanding where you’re from, what you are or where you’re going....

Just a thought.

Not "A affects B". Rather, changes to A result in changes to B. When this relationship is observed, it provides evidence that either:

* A is B
or
* B is causally connected to A

But if the mind is causally connected to the brain, then by virtue of its causal interaction, it too must be material. But if it is material, then what else can it be, but the brain? There is no room in the skull for anything else. Therefore, A is B, the mind is the brain. — hypericin

This is an observation of A and B in isolation. Even if the mind is causally connected to the brain, it need not be fully contained within the skull. Therefore, the fact that changes to A result in changes to B does not necessarily mean that A is B. The mind may be probabilistically locatable in the skull, but is nevertheless NOT identical to the brain.

Religion is also good.
— frank

But faith, not so much.

Faith here, following Augustin, as belief despite the facts.

Indeed, that is the antithesis of science, since it debars self-correction of one's erroneous beliefs. — Banno

This is a very common misunderstanding of the situation: in the religious context it is more properly a case of faith in the absence of, rather than despite, the facts, since there are none. — Janus

Faith is action in the absence of certainty, and is a key aspect of the scientific method. Without it, no experiments would ever be conducted. There is a common misunderstanding that faith is the absence of doubt, but this is not the case. Faith always carries with it the possibility of doubt, too often ignored, isolated or excluded in pursuing an illusion of certainty. Science does this too, but where the scientific method ensures ongoing critique and correction of erroneous beliefs in light of this ever-present doubt, institutionalisation in both religious and scientific structures serve to protect and preserve tradition by concealing doubt and uncertainty. I think language is a key problem area here.

Information is not matter, it has no mass, no energy, no extent. Nonetheless every time you visit a web page, information is driving the physical output of your computer screen and speakers. — hypericin

I don’t see how information does not ‘have’ energy in the same sense that fields ‘have’ energy (as stated in the OP). It seems to me that information at this level IS energy - which is why Bartricks suggests that information is a ‘property’ of matter.

But it’s like you’re discussing information on different awareness levels. For Bartricks, information would be an immaterial property of (the computer as) a physical system in motion. But I understand information as the distribution of attention and effort that ‘drives’ the physical output or ongoing state of the (computer) system. Which is kind of the same thing, just described differently.

Panpyschism would solve that problem - if problem it be - becuase now everything has conscious properties and so nothing has been gotten out that wasn't there in the first place. It solves it at the cost of insanity, of course: for it is plainly absurd to suppose that every material thing has conscious states. — Bartricks

It looks like you’re equating ‘conscious properties’ with ‘conscious states’. The problem I have with this is that static material objects are not the same as physical systems in motion. The main difference is in how energy flows through the system. For an object to have a conscious state is impossible, but it is not so much of stretch for a physical system in motion to imply what we refer to as a ‘conscious state’. Bear with me here - I’m not saying this is evidence of a conscious state, only the possibility.

So, what is a conscious state, and how do we ascertain that one exists? And how is this different from the existence of conscious properties? I think this needs to be clarified, because there is a difference between properties and states.

Property: an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something.

State: 1. the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.
2. a physical condition as regards internal or molecular form or structure.

Men too can certainly relate to a body part reacting to stimulus in a way that may not be inline with conscious will. The reaction nevertheless has a purpose and isn’t random or arbitrary. — praxis

:lol:

It’s not quite the same thing, though - the process is not one of awareness and assimilation, but of awareness, connection and collaboration with a newly forming identity. Men eventually need to accept that this body part and its reactions are your own - with pregnancy, you may reach that point... and then have to turn around and untangle it all again.

I can’t say I agree with such a blanket approval of what is known as ‘science’, but I do agree that the process of checking explanations is a good thing. It is the entire scientific method - not the narrow section in the middle that those who call themselves ‘scientists’ today primarily concern themselves with - that has contributed most to our positive progress. Without continually bringing it back to this broader context, ‘science’ quickly loses its way. — Possibility

What's that then?

As in, if you what to claim that there is good science and bad science, we might listen better if you can tell us how to differentiate them. — Banno

I’m not claiming that there is ‘good science’ and ‘bad science’ - only that the ‘good’ or ‘bad’ of science is where aspects of the scientific method (such as formulating both the question and conclusion/explanation) are excluded from the responsibility of ‘science’.

There's a distinction between knowing stuff and doing stuff.

Science falls on the side of knowing stuff. Sure, what you know will be used poorly; but even in the face of that I'm not disincline to say that knowing stuff is worthwhile in that it opens up more options for what we can do, as well as allowing us to better understand the consequences for what we do.

There'd be an argument, should the world end, that we might have been better not finding out the stuff that led to our demise; that our end is payback for the hubris of science.

There'd be another argument claiming that the science is neutral, and our demise is the result of failure to progress morally and socially.

There'd be yet another argument that if we had done more science, so that we better understood our plight, we might have been able to avoid it.

Three distinct narratives. Which to choose? — Banno

Science is part of understanding, not simply ‘knowing stuff’ for the sake of it. To isolate ‘science’ from its real world application - relegated to blindly producing ‘options for what we can do’ - is a fairly recent development: one, maybe two centuries old. Personally, I believe that science is as responsible for the choice of narrative as it is for the knowledge. But the distinction between theoretical and experimental sciences, the call to Shut Up and Calculate, or the business structures of Big Pharma, are just some ways that ‘scientists’ distance themselves from such responsibilities.

What system would that be? I ask because when I look for these things I only ever see individual people, separated by the fact of their position in time and space. A relation, no matter what size, is no system. We live in parallel, not in series. The responsibility lies upon these beings themselves and not to any grand abstraction such as a “system” or “the general good”. That’s my view, anyways. — NOS4A2

I don’t think we live either in parallel or in series. It’s a far more complex relational structure than this.

But I do see the attraction of this simplicity as ‘individuals’ living in parallel, like billiard balls on a plane. We used to believe the atom was indivisible in this way, too. It’s only when you look closer at the process of splitting an atom that you recognise the ‘individual’ as a relational structure in itself - a system, an “interconnecting network” of potential: value, energy, information, etc.

A relation may not be a system, but its relative in/stability points to the potential or possible existence of a system structured to maintain it as such. I don’t really see this as ‘the general good’, but I will admit that I used to assume so. Nowadays, my view is that we continually critique, imagine, simulate, test, adjust and then ‘act as if’ it is.

A system is a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network. Even you should be able grasp this rather simple concept. Your body, for instance, could be seen as a set of organs working together as parts of a, uh, largely functional individual. None of your organs functions are arbitrary, they each fit into the system in a particular way. There is an order, a system! If your bladder decided that it was an individual and had to express its individuality by peeing whenever you read the word "communist", well, you'd be sitting in a pool of urine right now and wishing your bladder were more responsible. — praxis

I can relate to this experience throughout my two pregnancies: the notion of a part of your bodily system ‘expressing its individuality’ by responding in its own way to certain foods, bodily movements/positions or environmental factors (sounds, temperature, etc)...

Shortly after birth one is excised from his mother, thereby severing any connection to anyone else. There's nothing arbitrary about this very real uncoupling. Indivisibility beyond this point means death. What is arbitrary is any notion of responsibility toward others, towards some collective, even towards one's newborn. The history of infanticide attests to this. — NOS4A2

What you see is a visible uncoupling only. Although this action is medically (or culturally) determined following birth, the uncoupling of the birth itself is as arbitrary as any notion of responsibility towards one’s newborn. It is medicine and socio-cultural structures that determine what is ‘normal’ here, and intervenes as it sees fit. Yes, there is a threshold to life, but that specific point is going to be different for everyone.

The physical cutting of a cord can mark the apparent end of a long and painful process, or seem just the beginning of an even longer one. In most experiences, this particular cut is symbolic at best. While there is a relative temporal range within which ‘uncoupling’ at certain quantifiable levels is deemed ‘healthy’, the experience itself is much less cut and dried, and only normalised by cultural accounts and medical data. If you’ve ever openly discussed with a pregnant woman her option or reasons to terminate, or had to determine the extent to which a post-natal mother might harm her newborn, then you can appreciate the arbitrariness of this connection between mother and child, regardless of the state of the umbilical cord.

Infanticide is not just about the notion of responsibility - the way I see it, it stems from the struggle to cope with this whole tangled web of ‘uncoupling’ in the relational structure of what we perceive, think and feel, and can begin as far back as (awareness of) conception. We need to understand this space more, if we’re to help all women to navigate it confidently.

For a human being to manage the process of pregnancy entirely alone would likely mean death to both mother and child. I think it is how we connect to others, how our self-identity shifts between individual and collective, that supports this process of uncoupling.

I can’t say I agree with such a blanket approval of what is known as ‘science’, but I do agree that the process of checking explanations is a good thing. It is the entire scientific method - not the narrow section in the middle that those who call themselves ‘scientists’ today primarily concern themselves with - that has contributed most to our positive progress. Without continually bringing it back to this broader context, ‘science’ quickly loses its way.

I have been reading along with great interest (and, yes, rolling my eyes on occasion) and would like to make a few observations.

I can’t say that I favour either side of this debate - for me, it seems to be the ongoing dynamic of society to oscillate between individualism and some extent of collectivism.

That said, I don’t believe the ‘individual’ is as indivisible as he claims to be - he’s really just another form of collectivism. And, on the other hand, any form of collectivism we define and isolate from another is simply another consolidation of collaborative systems into an ‘indivisible’ structure.

So I think we can argue about this endlessly without reaching any conclusion, because we’re really just arguing about an arbitrary threshold of perceived consolidation/divisibility, and the merits and issues of the various structural possibilities on either side of that variable threshold.

Every individual is a construction that relies on collectivism for its existence - even in one’s rejection of that collectivism - and every identified instance of collectivism relies on the mutual awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion of consolidating systems. To double down on the ‘individual’ human being as the threshold of in/divisibility is as much an arbitrary perception as any collectivism argued for here.

I do think the experience of motherhood is a key aspect of my position. The notion of ‘individual’ becomes arbitrarily determined when your responsibility for another life must be gradually (and sometimes painfully) extricated from your own on a number of levels.

No, I’m not a physicist. Feel free to disagree with me. This is just how I understand it.

Mathematically, of course you can separate out ‘time’ as a linear value structure. And locally, time appears to pass according to this linear progression as measured by the ticking of a clock. But physics tells us that there is no universally linear progression of time in reality. Any linear time progression is relative to a position in space.

I get that you’re referring to a subjective experience of time as a finite ‘possession’. Patience is not about possession, though - it’s about awareness of resources available, not allotted. And as I said before, it isn’t just about time, but also about attention and effort.

So it is’t just that other people make demands on our time, but that they can also contribute their time, attention and effort towards our goals. Including time they don’t share with us.

The other problem with time in re packing problems is that time seems to be 1 dimensional unlike space which is 3D. 3D space allows us to do much more, much much more than would be possible in space of lower dimensions. That said, there's parallel processing which, in a sense, makes time 2 dimensional, allowing more to be done in a given time. — TheMadFool

Separating out ‘one-dimensional’ time from three dimensional space is a misunderstanding of dimensional structure. How do you think parallel processing occurs? Time is not one-dimensional - it already has a four-dimensional structure in reality. We just need to develop our awareness of this.

Harmonious delight in the possibility of existence.

It’s not a goal because it isn’t quantifiable or measurable, but it gives me a sense of direction, at least.

I’m inclined to think that’s all we really need.

The aim is to "pack" as many useful/productive activities into a given time slot, keeping time wastage at a minimum. I suppose such a perspective treats time and space as somewhat equivalent concepts. Come to think of it, we do experience time (we age), doesn't that mean we're 4-dimensional beings? — TheMadFool

Well, by my account we are five-dimensional: we recognise that the passage of time is experienced differently according to perceived value/significance. Time is relative - both in quantity and quality.

It depends on what you consider to be ‘time wastage’, and what you consider to be ‘useful/productive activities’. The point I was making here in relation to ‘patience’ is that we are social creatures - we don’t make these ‘packing’ choices in isolation, as evident by the example given here of someone who wants another to ‘be patient’. The time we have is shared, and that awareness, connection and collaboration means that some activities which may appear ‘wasteful’ in isolation are more productive when viewed in a social context.

I also see Spirit as the process behind breath as you mentioned. For me breath is just the biological effect that is required for Spirit's existance — dimosthenis9

I don’t think breath is required for spirit’s existence - but awareness does give us confidence in this existence. ‘Spirit’ is commonly reserved for a relation to the flow of energy through a system we understand to be living. This relation can be actual, potential or possible. As such, it naturally extends beyond the structure of a living system, relating to chi, or the potential for energy to flow through ALL existence, regardless whether the observable effect is ‘breath’.

Breath is just the most obvious way that energy flows through a living system. It has connotations of an immaterial, essential, involuntary and cyclical process, that is nevertheless altered by thought, emotion and perception.

So, while it is a useful metaphor, it’s just one outcome of this process to which ‘spirit’ refers. But to reify spirit, to use the term in reference to an actual thing, then I would agree with @Banno in that “anything further just muddies the picture”. There is no actual thing other than breath that can be termed ‘spirit’. I think we need to be clear on this.

Spirit refers to an idea, which starts with the observation of breath: that energy flow (chi) through a living structure is not only essential to maintaining that structure, but also alters and is altered by it. In this sense, the logical and qualitative structure of life is inseparable as such from how energy flows through it.

Energy in classical physics is a quantity of effort, typically isolated from its qualitative or electromagnetic ‘flow’. But modern physics demonstrates that the way energy flows alters and is altered by all of existence, down to its most fundamental elements. Energy at the level of potentiality consists of quantitative effort inseparable from qualitative attention. Our most accurate accounts of reality are currently formulated as a prediction on how energy flows through a system, or as instructions for a system-wide temporal distribution of both attention and effort: a wavefunction, as it were.

For me, then, energy flow through any system (chi) is essential to maintaining that system as such, and both alters and is altered by it. So this notion of ‘spirit’ refers to a capacity for awareness of chi (starting with breath). What we do with that capacity is something else entirely.

Then perhaps they need to invest more in the recycling of old devices. This always reminds me of the animated film ‘Robots’. Innovation needs to be held responsible for the resulting obsolescence.

I do somewhat agree with you in that we shouldn't judge others for being less patient in given situations. The problem is, when somebody else requires you longer to get something done because they want you to be patient. — HardWorker

I can only imagine you keep bringing up this example from personal experience. If someone else is wanting me to ‘be patient’, to slow down on achieving a particular goal, I would think there was more to that as well. I would suspect that they wanted me to spend this available time, effort or attention on something else.

Why leave until tomorrow what can be achieved today? Perhaps this call for patience comes from one’s family or friends, who would prefer that you spent more time with them. Perhaps the call comes from your employer, who needs to allocate those hours to other staff. Or perhaps it’s from someone close to you, who sees the effect that all work and no play has on your health or relationships, or would simply like you to be less focused on trading all your time for money.

Patience is about our awareness of limited effort and attention resources we have available at any one time, and how we distribute it efficiently. Sometimes it’s more efficient to wait until someone else is available to collaborate, because together you’ll achieve more than one of you working alone. Sometimes it’s more efficient to stop what you’re reading and get some sleep, because you’ve just re-read the same paragraph four times. And sometimes it’s more efficient to work only 20 hours a week because you’re more than just a money-making machine to those who love you.

Spirit is chi - our awareness, knowledge or understanding of the flow of energy through a structured system. Simply or naively put (in common English), it’s breath, as Banno says. But it’s really the variable process behind breath - the imagined possibility or perceived potential - which we refer to as ‘spirit’. Breath is actual evidence of such. It’s where we must start in terms of awareness. I don’t believe it’s the most accurate definition, though.