[And what happend to ?]

Does a bird know it's beautiful?

There is the magic, mystic crystal revelations of the New Age — Bitter Crank

There’s a chapter in Evelyn Underhill’s “Mystcism” about the distinction between the two words, magic and mysticism, both of which are outdated and have different connotations than they did when she wrote, but it’s worth noting. (Off the top of my head), From her research, she deleineates magic as a psychologizing form of mystic practice with the sole purpose of power; harnessing a practice for personal gain. Mysticism in the classical sense as practiced within Christianity is a pure act of love for the creator; the “Divine Wound”, and is focused on achieving Union with the divine.

So, it’s intersting to note that theosophy, and then New Ageism (growing out of theosophy) grew out of a more magical approach to mysticism. Which would put secular meditation, yoga, etc, purely in the camp of magic, not mysticism. Spiritual practice for personal power and gain, not for a movement towards union with the divine.

I’ll look at the chapter tonight.

Oh I know, Wayfarer! I was joking myself. This thread has been an interesting read so far. (Y)

Yikes!

Is this thread "pseudo-science"? @TimeLine?

Its a logical argument disputing the idea that we've 'always' struggled against the cruelty of nature and 'always' will, there is no "so". — Pseudonym

Yeah I know; so what?

The state in which we evolved, hunter-gatherers. — Pseudonym

So what? Hunting and gathering for what purpose? To promulgate more hunter gathers, to promulgate more hunter gathers? So what? They all die.

P1. Stress, great displeasure and depression are evolved responses. — Pseudonym

So what?

P2. Stress, great displeasure and depression are very harmful to the survival of the individual. — Pseudonym

So what?

P3. Humans evolved through a process of evolution through natural selection. — Pseudonym

So what?

C1. From P1-3, if the natural state of humans was high levels of stress and depression we would either have died out, or e would have had to evolve ways in which they were not so harmful to our survival. — Pseudonym

What does natural mean here, in relation to evolution?

C2. It cannot be the case that states which cause high levels of stress and depression are the 'natural' state for humans. — Pseudonym

So what is the "natural" state?

:’(

The G of E story is the prime explanation of all our misfortunes, and since it is archetypal, everything else is going to seem like a footnote. That life is unsatisfactory or that we are neurotic is as foundational as the story of Adam's and Eve's expulsion from paradise. It only lacks the nicety of narrative form. — Bitter Crank

Those phrases don't "only" lack narrative form, they lack narrative form. There's a huge difference between an archetypal story that illustrates experience, and a simple observation that "life is unsatisfactory". Anyway, that's all I meant by mentioning that the Garden of Eden story was the only explanation that you offered.

Bad things happen in life because we are fragile and nature is rough. — Bitter Crank

I guess I'm engaging in this thread at all because I actually want to ask "why are we fragile?" and "why is nature rough?" I'm having a toddler moment. I'm not satisfied with these placations and admonishments about how "shit happens", etc.

we create at least some of the unsatisfactory reality from which we suffer. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. But that relates to the issue of autonomy/development. When we create our own suffering, are we doing it because of developmental lack, or does everyone do it, no matter how "developed" they are? What the fuck does it mean to be "developed"?

But autonomous individuals are as subject to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as any one else is. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but the idea is that they're better equipped to handle the barrage. If that's so, then judgement of actions can't be universal.

The Garden of Eden seems to be the only explanation there; the other options are just observations or descriptions. The question is what the source of individual human suffering actually is. I think it's fundamentally not in our control, as Agu and Peterson say, but that's because developmental factors like parents, teachers, socio-economic status, etc., are not in our control initially. The question now is how personal autonomy is developed/attained. If someone is never given the tools to develop autonomy, then who has caused the suffering they experience because of a lack of autonomy, for instance? Are all individuals unequivocally responsible for their own actions 100% of the time, and thus for their own suffering, or no? This is where I think Peterson goes too far; or rather, doesn't consider the deeper issues there. Autonomy is achieved from a specific kind of conscious awareness of personhood, which is not something everyone develops fully, I don't think.

Exactly. Peterson and co. just treat the cause of suffering as being the fault of or caused by no one, or if anyone caused it it's the people who are being hurt by it caused it. — MindForged

Where does "Peterson and co." say if anyone caused suffering, it's the people who are being hurt by it causing it?

I'm asking why life is suffering, if that is indeed the case. I think there's an argument to be made for the idea, whether or not it's correct, and that argument would presumably be important within the discussion, but Peterson doesn't seem to make any argument about why life is suffering.

Because we don't control every bad thing that can happen to us, nor can we control it. Obviously. — Agustino

See above.

The love is palpable.

"Come, my soul, depart from outward things and gather thyself together into a true interior silence, that thou mayst set out with all thy courage and bury and lose thyself in the desert of a deep contrition." - Henry Suso, The Little Book Of Eternal Wisdom

But why is suffering "just" the nature of life? That's a cop out.

And, more importantly, again, no where did I state that I think you're "not allowed" to have an opinion. you're conflating me not liking your approach with you not being allowed to have an opinion.

And I'm just saying I don't like those sorts of threads. I was expressing an emotion. Of course you can keep making threads that annoy me; I shouldn't even have to say that.

No no, I'm fine with you expressing your opinion. I just don't like threads where the questions are supposed to lead me somewhere, i.e. where the question is being begged. But beg away; I'm not questioning your right to beg the question.

Where did I say you're not allowed to have an opinion about this? Or that you are "somehow not allowed to ask others what they think"? And clearly I pegged your positions correctly.

Do you believe in the uniqueness of consciousness and free will enough to stake the future of humanity on it, do you think we should proceed under a presumption that is safer, or alternatively do you think there is even more risk from presuming these traits are not unique? — Pseudonym

Again, the assumption on your part here is so obvious as to not even warrant a more detailed response.

What? Because I indicated I thought it unwise you decided to go for it. I'm touched that my opinion is so influential in your decision making, even if only to oppose it. — Pseudonym

No, I just like a good fight every now and then.

How does the question lead you somewhere? I — Pseudonym

The thread title is suggestive, as is:

philosophers have idly speculated — Pseudonym

Only in the last few hundred has it become polarized into the debate we recognise today — Pseudonym

the debate was almost entirely academic — Pseudonym

We now, however, face the problem of increasingly intelligent AI and the question of whether it needs to be controlled in some way. — Pseudonym

If free-will is an illusion and conciousness is simply something available to any sufficiently complex computational system, then absolutely nothing will distinguish us from AI apart from the fact that they are several thousand times more intelligent than us. — Pseudonym

If conciousness and free-will is something unique to humans then there's no threat from AI, but is it safe to pin the future of humanity on some fragile metaphysical constructions, are those who believe in free-will and conciousness (as a uniquely human trait) willing to stake the future of humanity on it? — Pseudonym

Basically the entire post, in other words.

The tone of your OP was clear that you thought it was unwise to make the stake; so I made it.

I don't like these OPs where the questions are leading me somewhere.

And because I believe in free will being something uniquely human, I have no fear of AI overcoming that free will. AI could lead to catastrophic pain and death, but if it does, then that catastrophic pain and death is the responsibility of humans with free will because humans with free will created AI, and so it will always be the fault of those humans, no matter how out of hand it might get.

are those who believe in free-will and conciousness (as a uniquely human trait) willing to stake the future of humanity on it? — Pseudonym

1 vote for "yes".

Very earnest post, as others have mentioned. Thanks.

A thought about this:

3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways. — Gerald47

What's the metaphysics of "the cure involving regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativisng perspective"? Are the sources actually transcendent, or do they just seem transcendent?

If they aren't actually transcendent, they're a form of delusion.

But if they are actually transcendent, then that would also answer a few other issues in your post, I would think.

Yes, that's an example of what I mean.

I'm not sharing an opinion, which is what you're doing. — Sam26

No, you shared this opinion:

Well, all emotion does is cloud the issue, — Sam26

Thanks for the refresher on logic.

That refresher doesn't have anything to do with my contention that emotion plays a primary role in arguments.

Well, all emotion does is cloud the issue, — Sam26

No, emotion can do that, but, ideally, emotion drives the issues. Emotion is, in that sense, primary, and comes before reason; bias, for instance, comes before reason. And bias is emotional. But there is a right bias and a wrong bias, I think.

and logic is similar to mathematics; as such, it needs no emotion to come to a correct conclusion. — Sam26

What does "similar" mean there? Something being mathematically correct has no bearing on something being morally correct, for instance, and morals and emotion are inextricable. Again, there are right emotions and wrong ones.

Disagree. Evidence and good reasons without emotion are husks with no corn.

Also, if emotion has no place in a philosophy forum, then I want no place in such a catatonic place.

Maybe you missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of that initial exchange, or maybe it wasn't clear by way of my responses.

So how should I have responded instead? Thanks for the feedback, but it seems like a small post in the scope of a 4-page thread for you to make a response towards.

This sort of language is precisely what allows all faults and sufferings of the world to be cast at the feet of the oppressors - they are responsible, that's why the world is bad. Whereas Peterson's point is that life is suffering, and we are not responsible for that - it's just the nature of life. — Agustino

Can you expand on this?

Hold on, be right back *heavy drag*

I guess I'll take this opportunity to smoke a cigarette...

Wait, what are you suggesting about my identity? I'm "dying" to know.

For instance, when I said "you don't know who I am", I was referring to my avatar itself. Maybe too subtle for such an exchange....

Don't be sorry; I was going along with the fun you were having.

I'm a clueless home-schooler; you need to expand on what you mean.

Your dead because no one uses black and white photo in this millennia. — René Descartes

Bullshit. 1) you don't know who I am, and 2) you don't have a grasp of the aesthetic potential of grayscale.

So this thread is a joke? I was playing the joker and the philosopher at the same time, as I always do, because I thought there was something real here to be discussed.

Why would my possible death be reason to assume I should follow BC's advice? And what specifically made you think my avatar should lead to my inherent death?