The condescension and self-assurance is such an outlier, such a relative novelty, that it's stimulating in some perverse way. Is this dude for real? This dude is for real. I know that some part of me is like that too. Which is scary. But such is life. — dog

On point again, I must say. I feel responsible for the proliferation of this thread; I just couldn't look away.

1. As you are quite accustomed to belief, I see that it may be difficult to detach yourself from it. — ProgrammingGodJordan

2. It may be somewhat odd to grasp, since you had probably been used to the concept of belief for quite some time.

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

Purely out of curiosity, moderators, what exactly connotes "evangelism"? I have no interest in anyone being warned or banned; the more bullshit evangelism the merrier, per my view (hence my entertainment of this thread). But I've always been interested in this issue with regards to the guidelines, and this thread seems like a prime example of secular evangelism. Maybe I'm wrong?

1. What "high hanging fruit" has been offered by the others? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Scroll back through the thread.

I liked its concreteness. — dog

Ah yes, that was the whole joke, as I recall. :D

Ah! I do remember. I'm sure I wasn't ignoring what you said; I get apathetic sometimes with responding to mentions.

Are you really using flat-earthers as fodder for your argument that belief should be abolished? Try for some higher-hanging fruit; the stuff everyone in this thread has been offering.

Eh? Commas?

You're on point.

in what you quoted..

He just showed you why.

>:O

Also, going by your internet search of "belief", we can easily analyze your own beliefs and compare them against those definitions:

1. "An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

See:

After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief! — ProgrammingGodJordan

2. "Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion."

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

3. "A religious conviction."

As Neil deGrasse Tyson says, science is true whether or not one believes in it!
Pertinently, that one may believe in science, does not suddenly remove that belief is a concept that permits that one may typically ignore evidence, as observed in the analysis below:

Belief (by definition and research) is a model, that permits both science, and non-science.
However, crucially, belief typically facilitates that people especially ignore evidence.
A model that generally permits the large ignorance of evidence contrasts science.
Instead, we may employ scientific thinking, that largely prioritizes evidence, rather than a model (i.e. belief) that facilitates largely, the ignorance of evidence.
Unfortunately, I had been a theist up until my 21'st birthday. Fortunately, at age 22 (I am now 27), I finally identified as an atheist. After 4 years of being an atheist, one day I thought about belief, and I recognized that not only was theistic faith invalid, but also, the very concept of belief!

As a precaution for preventing myself from absorbing nonsense, I had come to invent something called "non beliefism".
Beyond atheism, "non beliefism" enables a state of mind that rejects not merely religious belief, but the very concept of belief. — ProgrammingGodJordan

4. belief inTrust, faith, or confidence in (someone or something)

It is probable that somebody/something is utilizing your account to compose messages. I need not belief to observe said probability. — ProgrammingGodJordan

1. In contrast, I refer to standard definitions: — ProgrammingGodJordan

That's probably the genesis of your issues here, then.

And you still have not responded to my arguments, and you've barely responded to anyone else's arguments.

Why do you garner you must believe, in order to observe that science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence?
In other words, don't you recognize that regardless of whether or not you believe, science prioritizes evidence, whereas belief, by definition/research permits typical ignorance of evidence? — ProgrammingGodJordan

You continue to use exact phrases in your arguments. Using single words consistently is a good way to make a clearer argument, but using entire phrases just means that you have an entire premise in your head which is unassailable to you, but nowhere have you actually made the argument for this premise, and the exact reason is because it's an unassailable premise to you. In other words, everyone responding to you in this thread is challenging your pre-concieved notion of what you think belief is, but because you believe your premise is unassailable, you're either blind to what's happening in the debate, or unwilling to accept it.

1. Your words: "I don't detect any cognitive science papers that show that belief is unavoidable.
Science generally occurs on evidence, belief permits that evidence is typically ignored.
So, we can contact a model i.e. scientific thinking, that is something that prioritizes evidence, rather than contact belief, which generally permits ignorance of evidence."

2. My response: none of that is a response to my comment.

2. Again, why do you garner that belief is unavoidable? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Again, it underlies all forms of thought; it underlies "scientific thinking" (whatever that is), [belief] in evidence, rational arguments. There's no rational argument to make because belief underlies rationality; apprehending the role belief plays in experience and thinking requires reflection and intuition. If you can't see it, you just can't, which you probably can't.

1. I don't detect any novel information from those threads.
I've been discussing "non-beliefism" online since 2016, so I've seen many similar responses. — ProgrammingGodJordan

You read all 3 in 8 minutes? Nice.

2. My response: That's ironic, for you have constantly rehashed or implied that belief is crucial. — ProgrammingGodJordan

No, I gave my argument in steps of increasing detail, as responses to your responses.

3. Why do you garner that belief is crucial? — ProgrammingGodJordan

Belief underlies all forms of thought. There have been a lot of threads about belief recently:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2637/is-it-possible-to-lack-belief/p1

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2423/is-belief-a-predicate-for-salvation#Item_91

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2528/what-is-faith/p1

If you're going to bring an argument to the table, you ned to engage in a detailed defense, instead of just rehashing talking points. Show us why you [believe] your arguments to be valid.

3. In perhaps a short while, you may come to recognize that instead of belief, one may instead employ scientific thinking. — ProgrammingGodJordan

LOL

That means it's for you!

1. Recall what I just said above...

It's not probable, it's definite. The issue is who is using the account, and do you know that it's the person who normally uses it. You don't, but it would be a reasonable, justified belief to make the assumption that the person normally using this account is, in fact, currently using it.

What?

How do you know the person who normally uses this account is using it? How do you know I didn't dictate this response to my roommate?

You're missing my point.

Do you believe that the person who uses the Noble Dust account is typing this response to you?

Isn't the difference that at a gay bar, everyone (who is actually gay, at the gay bar) has a shared interest, namely, gay sex, or at least gay experimentation/flirtation/fun, etc? Whereas, at a bar that isn't a gay bar, there's an overwhelming hormonal mix of straight women, straight men, gay women, gay men, and everything in between? And so the playing field becomes that much more complicated in that bar. And so, by degrees, the issue of harassment becomes that much more complicated in a non-gay bar.

Ah, so the article is just updated tech vs. trollies.

The real issue with the dilemma that no one seems wiling to address is the issue of more loss of life versus less. More pain vs. less. And of course, there's no morally sacrosanct answer. Pain and death are equally incomprehensible, regardless of in what quantity.

Thnx

(L)

The record needs to be heard as one piece. That being said, Myrrhman is my current favorite:

A track from my favorite record of all time (used to be my favorite track from the record, actually, but not anymore. It's one of the more accessible tracks though)

Is there a theoretical scenario that is more realistic than people being strapped to tracks?

bagpipe horror show. — Bitter Crank

I can think of plenty of things to do with that, just off the top of my head. I may or may not credit you.

You decide for all time: Just say which one said "Art is whatever you can get away with" and that will be that. — Bitter Crank

Such power..

Sure, but not nearly as much as music. Sculptors would need a great deal of material knowledge in order to take a chisel to marble or a spatula to clay. So, I know I couldn't write a decent short poem in iambic pentameter let alone a longer one with a formal rhyme scheme. Iambic tetrameter I can manage, and can manage a rhyme scheme too for short poems. (Iambic tetrameter is ideally suited to drivel poetry.) — Bitter Crank

I don't want to get pedantic, but I'm still not seeing an argument for music requiring more knowledge of form. The only reason I care is that I tend to err on the side of the creative process being a fairly unitary phenomenon across disciplines. I think the process is the same, regardless of form, so one discipline shouldn't require greater or lesser control of form, just generally. I remember reading an essay by Henri Pointcare about the creative process of mathematical discovery, and his descriptions of doing work, failing, then coming back to the work after a day or two and occasionally having sudden, unexpected breakthroughs, resonated with me as well with my work in music. There seems to be this unconscious undercurrent in creative work, whether musical or mathematical, or whatever. People who do creative work seem to agree on what the process is like, on a general scale.

think musical composition would have to be more intuitively integrative and experiential than literary or plastic arts, because the composer has to know what a voice can and can not do, as well as what a violin, kazoo, gong, french horn, oboe, piano, guitar, or whatever the instruments are that one is going to compose for can and can not do. — Bitter Crank

[Sorry, quoting blocks of text because I'm on my phone]

Don't literary and plastic arts also require knowledge of what the given mediums, the forms, can and cannot do? One aspect of creative innovation is breaking those rules; Philip K. Dick and Warhol both had knowledge of form, and they eventually reached that "breaking out" point I mentioned. See Dick's VALIS for a masterful example of mastery of literary form, combined with total disregard for that form. If you just mean that music, along with dance, is more kenetic, then sure.

All creators of art have to know what they get away with--as Warhol or McLuhan said, "Art is whatever you can get away with." — Bitter Crank

Didn't only Warhol say that? Regardless, Warhol making that statement in the first place is the work of art itself; it's a provocation. I would assume you're aware of that. There's more to Warhol than the banality, which is not only the irony, but the whole point, I think. I guess that's just my interpretation.

Well, right, just because there are several editions of Plato on the shelf, doesn't mean Plato stood the test of time for everybody that walked into the bookstore, or even bought one of the editions of Plato, or even read some of it. Shakespeare hasn't stood the test of time for a lot of people, because his large volume of work in early-modern English is at least something of a challenge for many to read, and there is a lot of it. — Bitter Crank

No, I'm not saying because there's not unanimous agreement that a work therefore "doesn't stand the test of time", whatever that means. I'm saying that the cultural mileu is what determines an interpretation of the work; not only that, but works that are lauded by one generation often get passed down as canon without further critical, prescient analysis; they get passed down just by celebration. Kind of like Adornos concept of fetishism in art.

McLuhan thinks that the real art of our time is advertising, and at least to some extent I agree. — Bitter Crank

This is very true, and very disturbing. The money in the creative industry, for instance, is in advertising. So, the greatest art is being made to sell shit. Look at the retail industry; music playing 24/7 in order to create a fun atmosphere where people buy more useless consumer goods.

And if influence is a hair too obvious, then we sneer dismissively, "Derivative". — Bitter Crank

And, if someone dare suggest a point of reference to understand the work of the hallowed creative genius, she doth role her eyes.

Of course, some hermeneutical effort will be needed to get the maximum value out of the thing, and we will never be THE intended audience. But I liked it when I read it, and if a dunce such as I was when I read it can get something out of it, then many others can too. It was better than some contemporary experimental literary works I have had the misfortune to come across. — Bitter Crank

The point I want to make is that it’s not so clear whether certain works have actually “stood the test of time”, given all of those factors we both mentioned. And, to stay on topic, perhaps the same goes for philosophical works and concepts.

Musician? — Bitter Crank

Yes.

You will know, for instance, that the lines of a poem can have, may have, should have (depending) rhythm and rhyme. You will know (maybe) that a novel benefits from having an intriguing plot, very interesting characters, and lively dialogue. You'll know before you begin that plays are divided into acts, are all talk, but you get to provide stage directions. You will have poems, novels, and plays floating around your head, which you will want to keep at bay so you don't end up writing something too similar to last week's very popular episode of the horror show, Writer's Cramp on Amazon. — Bitter Crank

That hasn’t been my experience of the creative process. I don’t “know” any of those things, in the sense that that knowledge isn’t present with me at the proverbial writing desk. The creative process is instead an intuitive integration of the whole being, which includes the formative experience of listening to loads of music, learning how to play other people’s music, playing and singing with other people at the same time, understanding and being able to manipulate group dynamic for maximum creative success, etc. etc. developing a creative voice doesn’t magically happen when I sit down at the desk, it’s an ongoing process of integration and a sort of “breaking out” action which seems to be the natural result of total creative integration.

For the most part, though, you are on your own. YOU have to come up with all the amazingly good ideas, clever comments, exquisite word choices, etc., and no amount of familiarity with literature is going to help you very much. Evidence: how many Professors of English Literature (or any other literature) are also published authors of poetry, fiction, or drama that people actually enjoy? Few, few, few. Conversely, how many prize winning authors dump writing so they can teach at your average debased university English department? — Bitter Crank

Sure, I agree. But is the creative process something the professors never properly learned, or something they’re incapable of learning?

Philosophers, artists, writers--creative workers in general, start from scratch. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Of course an artist or philosopher builds off of what comes before. It’s well known who was influenced by who.

The epic of Gilgamesh is 4000 years old. — Bitter Crank

But what makes it compelling now can’t be what made it compelling then; the focal point of interest changes over time, and the same is true of philosophical concepts.

I believe mind is not the same as matter. I’m not a materialist. What exactly the distinction is between the two is not so clear. I tend to think of being as what generates matter, while conciousness arises from matter, but is impregnated, if you will, by being (that which generated matter). I’m reading an intro to the Kabbalah currently, and the parallels between Ein Sof and Brahman, and various Christian mystic concepts of “the ground of being” and that sort of thing are pretty fascinating. One philosopher who synthesized some of those concepts is Nikolai Berdyaev; his concept of primordial freedom is similar. So, with those concepts in mind, I’m saying Being generates matter, and consciousness arises from matter as an evolution of Being.

I voted “no” to philosophical progress. First, the purpose or telos of philosophy isn’t static over history in the first place; from the pursuit of wisdom or the good life, to availing theology, to constructing logical proofs which lead to other logical proofs, ad naseum. Look at Socrates all the way to Wittgenstein. There’s no progression from shallower to deeper wisdom, or a progression from a less good to a more good life, all thanks to philosophy. Rather, cultures rise and fall; they reach an apex of complexity and moral degeneracy, and then begin to decline. Apparently the greatest wisdom of the greatest thinkers can’t inhibit this metahistorical process.

I voted “no” to philosophy being worthless; for all its lack or progression or clear telos, of course philosophical thought and discourse has profoundly shaped the course of history, rendering it valuable.

Lastly, I voted “existentialist” because that’s the general philosophical school I have the most sympathy with, but I would change that if I could, now that I think about it. I’m less interested in philosophy these days in general, and more interested in studying and beginning to practice mysticism.