If these fields were trying to replace the intuitive concepts that are misleading about human nature, we wouldn't spend hours on this forum pointing out how they don't make sense. "Are humans selfish?", "Does freewill exist?", "What's the meaning of life?". We still use these poorly defined concepts that, when you think about it, are contradicting our knowledge of reality. — Skalidris

I for one find the issue of free will important - it facilitates a non-causally-deterministic ontology, for instance. And as to everyone being selfish, I'd say "of course" but in different degrees and with different ambitions (the altruist and the scrooge are both technically selfish, but one is far more selfless than the other). Still, I think I get what you're saying. One thing that's always bothered me, for example, is the concept that authentic love is always unconditional (which I encountered far too often in my youth). To which I say bull. Love between people is always conditional on one person not mistreating the other, this just because they can. Otherwise, dysfunction ensues.

So I think we agree with the concluding sentiment. But maybe approach it from different angles.

Why make it binary? There is no such thing as "perfect knowledge", knowledge is always evolving. — Skalidris

No, I didn't intend a sharp dichotomy. Empirical data on the human condition is quite important. But with this issue of whether it's within human nature for humanity to change into something better or of else being doomed to always remaining the same (as in the Roman coliseum days of bread and circus, for example, which I find we're currently reliving), I don't find that empirical data can ever be sufficient to evidence things one way or another.

For another instance, human nature is intimately entwined with ethics - and empirical data to my knowledge cannot evidence the nature of ethics (e.g., of whether the good is relative or objective), although it can greatly benefit our knowledge of what is and has been in practice.

To give you another example, the expectations we have of romantic love, the way it is painted in movies, is honestly closer to expecting being love bombed by narcissists than actually wanting to be close and spend your life with someone because you truly love who they are. And I believe so many relationships fail because people still hold on to these expectations and never reach it. — Skalidris

:up:

So, this part of the thread started with theorizing on possible actions and explanations of actions of gods. In your understanding are the purported behaviors and actions of gods (as described by religions), "supernatural", examples of the "metaphysical", or both? — LuckyR

One can find variations. For example, if one’s belief is that lightning is caused by Zeus because that’s what everybody else says, or because so it was somewhere written, but one does not hold a coherent and consistent explanation of why this is the case, then one will be holding supernatural beliefs without engaging in the philosophy of metaphysics. If, on the other hand, one for example hypothesizes that a god Zeus holds the properties of being all-powerful and all-benevolent as a premise and then processed to conclude that such a Zeus is existentially impossible on grounds of contradictions (lack of consistency)—e.g., that of Zeus not being able to create an object that is too heavy for him to lift, and that of evil occurring in the world—then one would here be engaging in the philosophy of metaphysics without upholding supernatural beliefs. And then there might be instances where the two converge. Here, Heraclitus philosophy comes to mind: he’s well enough known as a forefather of process philosophy (which is metaphysics) but, for example (from about 2/3 into §4):

There is, however, a guiding force in the world:

Thunderbolt steers all things. (B64)

The fiery shaft of lightning is a symbol of the direction of the world. Anaximander may have already used the image of the shipmaster of the universe (Kahn 1960: 238). Heraclitus identifies it with the thunderbolt, itself an attribute of Zeus the storm god. The changes wrought by and symbolized by fire govern the world. The ruling power of the universe can be identified with Zeus, but not in a straightforward way: “One being, the only wise one, would and would not be called by the name of Zeus” (B32). And here the word used for ‘Zeus’ can be rendered “Life.” Like the Milesians, Heraclitus identifies the ruling power of the world with deity, but (like them also) his conception is not a conventional one. — Heraclitus - SEP

---------

In the context of this thread, I so far take the issue of god/s to have been addressed with the intent of addressing philosophical metaphysics in the absence of supernatural beliefs.

Okay, I guess my previous understanding is correct. Namely that academic Metaphysics does NOT necessarily (even with a ten foot pole apparantly) address the actions of "metaphysical" entities. That second use of the word perhaps being a "colloquial" use of the term.

So we're addressing two different uses of the term. — LuckyR

Yes, two different usages of the term, but I for whatever reason feel that I've not been quite understood. So I'll write a bit more.

I’m assuming you were referring to this statement:

My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable. — LuckyR

In the context of philosophy, metaphysics is neither an atheistic nor a spiritual discipline; it’s indicative of neither. Its hallmark is, pure and simple, the study of reality’s fundamental principles. As such, its hallmark is not magic but reasoning, logic as you say.

Whereas the terminology of a “metaphysical entity”—by which I interpret you meaning a god, ghost, or the like—to me lucidly illustrates the prejudice against tampering with physicalist metaphysical principles which I previously mentioned. This as though physicalism is not of itself a metaphysical doctrine through and through.

To better illustrate this point: The claim what we as conscious beings transcend into a state of absolute nonbeing (of nothingness) upon our corporeal death is not commonly considered metaphysical but rather factual (this by the typical atheist at least), though it is an inferred conclusion that is usually derived in full from the purely metaphysical principles of physicalism/materialism (again, its interpretations of causation, substance, and the like)—and is thereby a metaphysical conclusion.

If you want to use “metaphysical” to address divinations, ESP, house fairies and the like, so be it. But, as I previously argued, that meaning seems to stem from a derogatory and reactionary interpretation of any academic metaphysics, else of metaphysics as a philosophical study, that questions the physicalist/materialist metaphysical worldview. And that meaning is certainly not what “metaphysical” means within philosophical contexts, such as the one we’re presently in.

Certainly one can find synonyms such as "supernatural", "spiritual", or "supernal", this while on a philosophy forum, rather than claiming that metaphysics is founded upon, or else is about, magic. Or at least qualify what type of metaphysics one is referring to. Or not. At the end of the day, just sharing perspectives here.

Just because some humans do some things doesn't mean everyone should do it, that has nothing to do with being closer to human nature. When I mentioned making concepts that are closer to reality, I meant it in a scientific way, gather the best knowledge we have about human nature and try to change concepts that are misleading like those I mentioned. — Skalidris

I think I understand you better now. Don't we already have such fields, though, including those of sociology, anthropology, and cognitive sciences?

I instead generally find that most are unconcerned for the established data thereby produced, especially when it conflicts with their preconceptions. And you generally can't force education down someone's throat against their will and expect the other to actually assimilate the data into their belief systems. So, to me, it seems to comes down to the issues of education and self-determined interests.

How is considering rape as a crime distorting human nature? — Skalidris

Well - although I fully agree with the sentiment - this pivots on the cultural battles that occur in some spheres regarding what human nature in fact is. We all project to some extent of ourselves onto others, and society at large. (is reality dog-eat-dog or not) But, what I find more important, we all hold some metaphysical pre-judments regarding the nature of reality and our place in it as humans. No doubt some empirically discoverable human universals occur and will continue to occur for as long as the human species remains human - but this doesn't come close to defining what "human nature" in fact is. This latter issue is fully contingent on the nature of metaphysical topics - as previously alluded to, such as the extent to which the human nature is plastic rather than being fully determined. Scientific data will not resolve this question.

To more directly answer, to some of those who deem human nature fully deterministic, the rape and assault and misogyny/gynophobia (latter: fear of femininity) that currently occurs in societies is there as a God or Nature given aspect of human nature. One that cannot be changed even in principle; one that is therefore not an intrinsic bad. If not a bad ... then it shouldn't be looked down upon when, for example, the male victors or a war or battle or conflict rape the women of the vanquished populace or party. Or, one can express something of the same for marital rape - which until recently was commonly accepted as not a crime.

As to crime, instead of rape being viewed an intrinsic wrong and thus criminal, one could go by the crime of damaging another men's property. Not unheard of in history. And this would make certain rapes non-criminal.

To be crystal clear, I'm not one to endorse the view just expressed, but I find it (or else something close enough to it) sufficiently prevalent to make mention of ... such as guys that want to (and thereby fantasize about) forcefully having sex with women that are antagonistic to them in arguments (etc.), and deem this natural. As in an integral aspect of human nature - or else of blatant reality that only ignoramuses of one type or another don't see.

But then, in my own belief systems, I do uphold that humanity has within it the potential to globally occur in world wherein sapient beings don't rape other sapient beings. Not tomorrow, and not in a hundred years. But as I view the issue, the potential is nevertheless there. (this to stay on the same topic rather than to address far more complex issues, such as the notion of a global, voluntary peace (here strictly meaning lack of warfare) among humans being possible, or not, in principle).

I'm quite capable of thinking, remembering, imagining without seeing images. — Ludwig V

I’m very curious: you say you don’t experience visual remembrances. I take it that, then, for example, you cannot recall what a childhood pet dog (in case you had one) looks like—but can instead only recognize the pet’s visual appearance if you were to see a photograph of the former pet? Also, I take it that you are not able to manipulate a geometric object, such as a square, within your mind? (“Imagination” can be a very ambiguous term at times--due to its etymology not being representative of all the terms often seeks to convey.)

Does the aphantasia you experience by any chance extend to any other sense of perception: sound, touch, taste, smell, and so forth? For instance, can you experience any such thing as an “internal voice” while thinking?

The issue is besides the thread’s topic, but I’d welcome your response.

How do you manage? — Ludwig V

Taking your question at face value: speaking for myself, I view it as an ability that can be used or not used. As one additional tool in the toolbox of cognition. It in no way interferes with any day-to-day cognitive process.

---------

Since I’m posting on this thread, my own position is that all perception of the external world is directly real when addressed from any first-person point-of-view. When addressed from a third-person perspective, however, perceptions of the external world are known to differ; sometimes mildly, such as with the various types of color blindness among humans, sometimes starkly, as can be found in the sometimes starkly different perceptual senses of different species of life (e.g., we don’t perceive the magnetic fields the way homing pigeons, for example, do and always have—cf. magnetoreception); thereby implying indirect realism in terms of individuals’ perceptions of what the external world factually consists of. Because of this, to me, both direct and indirect realism are valid, but occur in different layers of reality as a whole. (Said this to contribute, but I’m not much inclined to read along with the literature of Austin and Ayers, though I’ve been reading parts of this thread.)

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature? Why isn’t there a discipline that aims to build concepts that are closer to reality? — Skalidris

I’ve heard people maintain that rape is an ingrained aspect of human nature. Their argument basically boils down to “the proof is in the pudding: rape happens in the world and always has”. This genetically determined aspect of human nature is so called “reality” as they see it. So, does that mean that the rest of us ought to change our expectations so that they are accordant to this real reality … say when our wives, or children, or other relatives and loved ones are raped or assaulted? Is acceptance of rape, as a staple aspect of human nature that can’t be changed, then supposed to somehow make us less melancholic, or worse, when rape happens?

For those who happen to know what the true nature of Human Nature is, is it dynamically plastic (on account of givens such as environment) or is it eternally static in full (due to some ontologically deterministic reason)? More specifically, this in relation to givens such as rape.

------

In Hugo’s Hunchback of Notre Dame there’s mention of “Tempus edax, homo edacior” (time is blind, man is stupid). I rather like it as aphorism, being a man myself. I'm thinking it might be of help with the melancholy of “knowing too much".

We have not been emotional or irrational reactionaries in our entire conversation. — Merkwurdichliebe

:grin:

Yes, now that you bring it up, quite true. Somehow was taking this for granted before as the way things ought to be. Especially on a philosophy forum. But I guess it is something significant enough to be worthy of mention. :up:

Why is that? — Apustimelogist

Space, time, and matter no longer make any mathematical sense within a black hole's singularity, are often enough said to "break down" at such juncture, and with some affirming that information itself becomes erased therein.

Again, why would information be assumed to survive at such juncture?

To me, this is having information. Though I think we are getting into the territory where we will have disagreements about the contents of experience or philosophy of mind generally, which would hinder agreement. — Apustimelogist

Most likely, yes. How do you define information? For me, quintessentially, information is to be defined by that which informs, or else "gives form to" ("form" in the Aristotelian sense). In so holding, I then take awareness to be informed by its percepts but to not of itself be information.

I don't think it is the average person that determines the government, despite the system. Whether constitutional republic or ochlocracy, it always seems to be controlled by a select few. When has the average person ever mattered? Was it Lenin who said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."? — Merkwurdichliebe

That made me laugh a bit, in a good way. Sure, but then it sure sounds like were addressing dysfunctional democracies here: states that are democratic only in name. This in full parallel to how communistic states have only been communistic in name.

Seems like the same applies to both in like measure: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". (to quote from Orwell, of course)

As for those who might be naysayers when it comes to functioning democracies, they've been in the past. Ancient Athens as a good example: the citizens - male though they all were - where deemed equal enough to have most offices of state settled by lottery. I say this laughingly: imagine having the secretary or state or some such selected by lottery nowadays. Its why education has always played one of many pivotal roles in any functioning democratic rule. So as to no result in a system wherein some are deemed "more equal than others". But this is a wholly different issue.

As for the connection topic, I'm OK at this point with agreeing to disagree on the matter.

The question is what information cannot be experienced and what experiences are not information? I think its quite hard to give examples for any of those things. — Apustimelogist

I'll give this a shot.

Information that goes past a black hole's threshold toward the singularity within the black hole cannot be experienced - at least not when at the singularity itself.

The experience one holds of oneself (as the observer of information) being certain about what is observed ... is not itself information; it, instead, is a mere direct awareness of one's own being as that which observes information (though it can become information when later on remembered and possibly contemplated as a remembered former state of personal being, this by oneself as observer of the remembrance).

If you disagree with these examples, I'd like to understand why.

I understand that, and police have a culture all their own. Maybe there are currents of racism running through police culture, I don't know. Let us impugn all police as racists (against black people, whatever), — Merkwurdichliebe

A touchy topic for a number of reasons. Besides, I've conversed with more than one police officer who was anything but a racist. Of course, if the culture of a particular precinct is, then those police officers within the precinct that aren't generally have a very hard time with things.

I still do not see any necessary connection between that, and the general sentiment of the average person. — Merkwurdichliebe

There's a lot of connections in life that cannot be epistemically established as necessary. All I've got to go on are my own experiences, of which I think I've addressed enough of.

Do you by chance uphold there being a "necessary disconnection" between the actions of state sponsored officials within a democracy and the general sentiment of the average person within said democracy?

:up:

As an aside, I thought it was interesting the you distinguished stage magic from purported Magick, since stage magic is, of course completely logical and scientific ie in no sense metaphysical. — LuckyR

Yet, as per my intended point in my previous post, the logical and scientific is itself fully grounded in pre-established metaphysical concepts and, thus, is itself metaphysical. Here’s where I find the colloquial use of “metaphysical” as that which is illogical and contrary to science fits in: the logical and scientific as we currently know it today is grounded in a set of metaphysical understandings which those who want to preserve the status quo don’t want to be interfered with. To such, metaphysics—such as everything which @Wayfarer addressed as examples—is a done deal that shouldn’t be meddled with. As such it ought to no longer be in any way addressed. So when such people hear that there is metaphysical debates and enquiries going on, they reflexively view it as an assault upon the status quo on which current logic and science is grounded. Thereby resulting in the purely colloquial understanding that enquiry into metaphysical issues entails that which is not supported by modern-day logic and science.

If this appraisal happens to at least partly describe your own view on the matter, then—as @Wayfarer points out—metaphysical issues as a grouping are in no way satisfactory resolved. Logic without identity is not logical. Science without temporality is not empirical science (at root: knowledge gained via experience), for experience of anything other necessitates duration. And yet what identity and time are—to readdress just two examples of metaphysics—is in no way satisfactorily resolved. Moreover, any new metaphysical understandings regarding, for example, identity and time would not destroy the logic and science of today. It would only better account for what is currently known, this in more coherent and consistent manners. Via analogy, the Theory of Relativity does not destroy the knowns addressed via Newtonian physics, but only better accounts for the knowns which Newtonian physics sought to explain (and yes, the ToR introduces new metaphysical notions, such as the nature of time; without these, the mathematics required for ToR would not be possible, or, at least, in any way intelligible ... to the best of my knowledge on the matter).

In short, current day logic and science is in every way metaphysical (invariably comprised of metaphysics of a certain type).

And, as it currently stands, these currently established metaphysics have been unable to resolve some of the core issues humanity at large is concerned with; for one example, the nature of consciousness and its volitions. Nor, for that matter, have they facilitated anything close to a physical Theory of Everything.

Anyway, your example of religious miracles as an example is right on. How do the academic Metaphysicians describe the parting of the sea, or the multiplication of the fishes and loaves? Myth? Magic? Some rationalization using vague pseudoscientific terminology? — LuckyR

Well, in my own opinion, the "academic metaphysician" wouldn't touch such an issue with a ten foot pole. It would be fully out of scope of what academic metaphysics entails (unless one happens to be a metaphysician upholding metaphysical notions of causality, time, etc., which ground some system of atheism; in which case their explanation would consist of all it being bogus, with the case closed).

The closest that academics would get to it is via comparative religion studies; such as those done by Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade, and I suppose one could add Carl Jung to the list. But such studies wouldn't be metaphysical studies, not by a very long shot.

All of the latter, to hold any water, need to be coherent and consistent in what they explain. So—unless someone somehow develops a coherent and consistent metaphysical account of (not just one, but) all spiritualities the world over which can thereby stand up to logical scrutiny and is not in conflict with empirical data—one has no business in metaphysically explaining JC's reported miracles (if, that is, any aspect of them happened to ever occur).

If magic is aprioristically understood as nonsensical, then metaphysics—such as the study of causality - has nothing to do with magic: for metaphysics attempts to make sense of what is, i.e. of the ontic, thereby being the ideally both coherent and consistent understanding of ontology and its various aspects (e.g., causality, time, identity, reality, etc.). These musings are what all science is founded upon, without which no science could be possible.

If however magic is understood in a more sensible manner - such as along the lines of “the process of aligning one’s environments(s) to one’s will” * - then certain types of metaphysics will indeed address magic: predominantly those which do not deny the possibility of us having some capacity of free will (there can be no conformity of environments to one’s will in ontologies such as that of eternalism (aka the Block Time model of reality), for one example). But then, the mere act of blowing one’s nose will be, of itself, an act of magic ** - making magic a very trite reality that can be deemed to apply to all sentient beings that in any way conform their environment to suit their own will/volition, this all the time and without exception.

In support of the latter affirmation, as is maintained by many modern pagans:

*

Aleister Crowley (1875–1947), an influential British occultist, defined "magick" as "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will",[9] adding a 'k' to distinguish ceremonial or ritual magic from stage magic.[10] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(supernatural)

**

What is a Magical Operation? It may be defined as any event in nature which is brought to pass by Will. We must not exclude potato-growing or banking from our definition. Let us take a very simple example of a Magical Act: that of a man blowing his nose.[1] — https://pagan.fandom.com/wiki/Magick

-----------

The non-pagan communities which don't in any way practice magic thinking it nonsensical will of course want to define magic differently - but then you have the aprioristic understandings of magic being nonsensical, which is not sponsored by those who do uphold that magic is real. All this overlooking the Abrahamic admonition against it as evil ... although Mr. JC sure seems to fit the description of someone who practiced magic, for one example. :grin:

As was previously pointed out more indirectly, we want to progress toward that end which we value—such that when we approach it, we deem this progress. We regress when we distance ourselves from that same end. Individuals will hold different goals in mind, as will different societies. Still, all this progress/regress analysis presupposes a true, or real, end (i.e., one that is ontologically actualizable at least in principle—rather than being a fiction imaginatively concocted by us which can never be obtained even in principle and which is thereby a deceitful/false/wrong/bad end to pursue … one that could be approached but then always results in failure and associated dolors), a real end which serves as that which is to be definitively valued by us sentient beings—this irrespective of one being religious or not. To this effect:

I consider the idea that our culture’s quest for interstellar travel is really the sublimated longing for immortality. Having substituted material progress for spiritual liberation, only by ‘slipping the surely bonds of earth’ is freedom to be found (pace Elon Musk’s desire to populate Mars). — Wayfarer

That sublimated drive for immortality you mention is almost nothing in comparison to what’s been coined “singularitarianism” … transhumanism 101 on steroids (probably nothing new here). I won’t bother with what I find to be the many unaddressed metaphysical underpinnings of scientism that are here taken on faith to be blatant truths. I’ll just say that if it’s metaphysically absurd to presume an Abrahamic Heaven wherein all immortal psyches forever therein interact with lack of any suffering on anyone’s part at any point in time (or else some eternal Hell wherein there is only dolor without any vacillations toward some states of happiness or pleasure, such as that of momentarily reduced dolor), then so too is absurd the notion of uploading our consciousnesses into some AI assisted cosmic mainframe—or some such—so as to obtain a blissful immortality (explicitly stated, this regarding the personal self as we empirically know it).

Here speaking in Eastern semantics, if there is ego, I-ness, then there will be samsara, necessitating both pleasures and pains of various degrees: same conflicts but in different, nonbiological makeup. No transcendent bliss to speak of. And I’ve yet to understand why, for example, one hard AI program could not lie to, steal from, or kill another hard AI program. So much for immortality. Yet the same underpinnings that drive some people toward the spiritual immortality supposed to occur in Heaven now drives many mostly secular folk toward this future state of immortal being via unification with machines. This being the exact same underlying drive toward immortality as end to progress toward that is expressed in different ways via different metaphysics.

In one possible contrast, there is no immortality of the ego to be had in the goal of actualizing what’s supposed to be the absolute bliss of Nirvana, else the absolute bliss entailed in the Western notion of henosis—these as only two examples from human history of a drive toward egoless being—for these states are deemed perfectly devoid of I-ness and, thus, of ego. This then being an utterly different goal-directed drive: one oriented at becoming selfless, this in contrast to the, well, selfish drive to hold on to the cherished aspects of one’s own empirically known self eternally.

Yet I’ve heard respectable scientists speak of such upcoming future transhumanist state when morning the natural death of their loved ones. Well, more precisely, one: a friend of the family’s relative, this when I when to the funeral.

Religion or no religion, the same underlying human drives toward future ends remain—toward which we either progress or don’t. And the end we individually pursue typically has a way of dictating the means we utilize in our want to get there. For one example, the want to never ever die as the ego one is aware of will often stand in the way of societal givens, such as that of altruism when looking death in the face (as a simplification of the issue: no soldiers going to war to defend one’s nation, no firefighters running into houses on fire to save others, no police chasing after bad guys with guns, etc.). Whereas the want for selflessness facilitates the altruism just mentioned.

I take it that most would deem selflessness to be a virtue and selfishness a vice.

So when we talk about progressiveness (progressives and the like) I tend to believe we’re generally thinking along the lines of progress toward a state of being that exhibits less selfishness and more selflessness. To me, there’s a lot to unpack here. Still, doesn’t secular notions of humanism and humanitarianism consist of drives such as those of greater compassion and less sectarian hatred, thereby being driven by an intended progression toward states of lesser ego?

[edited the first paragraph for better clarity, and added a bit more info to it]

Write more, please. You are a well-spring of fresh thought, don't cut yourself short for anybody, nor Time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Oh … just stop it. :smile: Thanks though. :pray:

If we are talking racially motivated homicide, it is pretty evident from police statistics that, whites are predominantly killing whites, and blacks are predominantly killing blacks. — Merkwurdichliebe

Interesting. I’m in fact surprised by the relatively low percentage of race on race killings among blacks—this considering that there’s a far higher percentage of black street gangs with violence in-between, or at least so my presumptions hold. I added that part about death due to what I’ve heard on the news regarding police killings. Here’s one statistic relative to the US:

Black males comprise 6.1 percent of the total U.S. population but 24.9 percent of all persons killed by law enforcement. — Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project - U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence

The statistic, though, doesn’t give context to why the disparity occurs. And I for now can only speak of cases I’ve heard of in the news, granting that they’re preselected to be newsworthy.

With that I can agree. Everyone holds racial prejudice, even those that genuinely consider all races equal. Prejudices of all types. The question is about which prejudices we can tolerate while respecting the core principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity/duty". Is it even possible to push the limits of tolerance? — Merkwurdichliebe

Aye, to that. It would be dysfunctional for developed life not to form pre-judgments (i.e. prejudices in this sense) via generalizations from past experiences. What degree of prejudice (in all senses) can or should be tolerated is a tough question; akin to asking how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap. Don’t know. Still, at the end of the day, we can all distinguish between a blatant heap of sand and a few sprawled out grains of the stuff ... or so I'm thinking.

I'm sorry you had to experience that xenophobia. I suppose you know first hand what it's like to be prejudged because of some perceived ethno-cultural differences. — Merkwurdichliebe

Nice of you to so say. My pov: In life, shit happens; don’t know of anyone who can affirm otherwise.

All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society. — javra

That is quite an exaggeration. It is the kind of thinking that this thread is meant to address. The notion that "racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society" is known as "racial realism". This concept originated with Derrick Bell, who applied marxian critical theory to his civil rights work and has become known as the core architect of crt.

I don't think that it is a coincidence that many Leftists are echoing the ideas of Derrick Bell. Impossible to think that so many would independently arrive at such complex ideas with such uniformity.

It seems much more likely that ideas based in critical theory (like those of Derrick Bell) have been taught in top tier Western universities for decades, and adopted by myriad successful people who have gone out into western societies to evangelize and exert varying degrees of influence. Many of those ideas have come to be go-to, boiler-plate talking points of the Left, particularly when pointing out how oppressive Western civilization is. — Merkwurdichliebe

Myself, I’m not well enough versed in political science to have much of an idea of what you’re referencing with Derrick Bell, unfortunately. I have however had Asian, Hispanic, and Black friends and acquaintances over the span of my life, aside from the white. From their stories—and from a little that was directly witnessed by me—incidences of racism from some pockets of society were and remain. Then there’s things like me hearing the N-word used in derogatory manners by folk that happen to be white thinking they're talking to another likeminded white person (for better or likely worse, I admit that I most often didn’t start lecturing them on why racism is not good). I've seen swastikas drawn up in humongous sizes in sand on easily seen beaches; and I don't think they were there to reference what the swastika represent in Eastern cultures.

Despite not knowing much about Derrick Bell, I greatly doubt that most of the “black lives matter” people in the USA gained their perspectives from writings, or even from the media; and I instead firmly believe that most have had shitty experiences due to racism on repeated occasions (with the untimely death of loved ones here included). Nor do I take the anti-Asian sentiments, assaults, and battery that are sometimes reported in the media to be some sort of a hoax sponsored by a cabal of liberal academics. And there’s a longer list here regarding present day accounts of racism. There’s antisemitism, as previously touched upon. There’s anti-non-Jewish-Middle-Eastern-ism. And more. Granted, this from my own largely USA-centric (more specifically Californian) acquaintance with the topic (though, being from Europe and having traveled there often enough, I’ve seen it there as well first hand).

What you’ve mentioned at least seems to indicate the view that racism is something only perpetuated by the majority populace toward minorities which are thus oppressed. However, in my experiences, there’s also racism that can and in some circles does occur from minorities toward the majority, as well as from one minority toward another. (For example, with the friends and acquaintance previously mentioned, some groups would make derogatory racial jokes against the race of other friends I had, with which the first batch of friends was not acquainted.)

So again, from what I know of the society I’m living in via my own experiences, racism—though not pertaining to the majority of the populace—does nevertheless exist well enough in society at large, and with no signs of stopping. It’s like traffic on the streets: most drivers are polite enough to make driving manageable, but there always were and still are those who can make driving in traffic an unpleasant experience due to being assholes. Yes, the latter are a minority on the streets, but there’s still enough of them to make driving, let’s say, unnecessarily stressful and antagonistic.

I’m not here offering any academic theory regarding the matter. It’s simply my honest observations that—although not pertaining to the majority as it currently stands—racism is alive and well in society. For me to deny this is for me to deny my accumulated experiences, as per those mentioned above.

[BTW, a funny anecdote: Normally cops are pretty cool with me on the rare occasion they’ve stopped me in traffic. Now, I’ve been confused over the years for a number of different races by some: Gypsy, Hispanic, Middle Eastern … Anyways, a white cop who gave all indications of at first thinking me Hispanic once pulled me over for driving about 5 miles per hour over the speed limit in a 40 or 45mph zone. I politely told him “good afternoon officer” as he was nearing my open window. He immediately pulled his pistol out of its holder in front of me while asking, “what did you say to me?”. At the end, he let me go scot-free … this after at first forcefully asking me if I was ever imprisoned and the like. Funny anecdote to me. But shoot, this doesn’t compare to stories I’ve heard from Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks I’ve personally known.]

With all that said, I'm by no means one to deem Western civilization oppressive! I find it to be quite the contrary. Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). But, to my knowledge, only in the West was the affirmation of "liberty, equality, fraternity" made explicit with ambitions to create states that more perfectly embody this ideal. This as just one example of what I have in mind. (The politics of any given moment does not constitute a civilization ... ah, but I've already written more than I initially wanted to, so I'll cut this short.)

At any rate, this doesn't make the West a place where racism is as infrequent as is murder.

Same can be generally said about the two different types of laughter at the exact same racial stereotype joke. A black, a white, and a purple walk into a bar ... — javra

BTW, I previously thought this self-evident, but now feel compelled to make the point explicit.

Talking about races, acknowledging their social reality (for they have no biological foundations*), and occasionally finding humor in some racially stereotyped jokes does not somehow make one a racist by default. Racism, in order to so be, is about deeming some races superior and others inferior—which is not necessarily entailed by any of the aforementioned.

* Plenty of online articles on this. Here’s a quote from one of them:

However, purported race differences are entirely man-made, and lack biological, physiological, or genetic underpinnings. — WHAT IS THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RACE - IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHIATRIC GENETICS

"Whereas racist intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. — Merkwurdichliebe

You may have forgotten the "anti-" part, as in "anti-racist"?

In which case, in the world I live in, this is patently false. If absolutely nothing else: Thought I am a white US citizen, I immigrated with my family to the USA on political asylum as a young kid. Not being protestant, not speaking English with a fluent accent, and not looking like a "true American", my family, and me, experienced a good deal of occasional bigotry if not racism all the same ... As just one measly example, my mom was spit upon with a sizable loogie by a troupe of "true Americans" as she got off the bus from work; foreigner-looking and sounding that she was, she obviously wasn't seen fit to dwell among the superior race of true whites. And this was almost a half a century ago, and in relation to white-skinned "inferiors".

But shoot, the example I just gave is trite. All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society.

I think harmless joking amongst friends that may play on racial stereotypes, like "white people can't dance" might constitute acceptable racism. It is too absurd not to be funny. The question is: where to draw the line on the comedic front. And then there is the issue of true racists using comedy as a front. It os certainly complicated. — Merkwurdichliebe

Yes. True. In not wanting to do another OP meriting thing, if it was, I'll just say that it depends on the intents of the humor (unconscious if not consciously held). You see a Chaplin movie where the Tramp slips and falls then gets up awkwardly: does one then laugh at the stupidity of the other such that one views oneself as superior to such stupidity (here there is category B pleasure in the laughter) or, otherwise, does one laugh with empathy at the character thinking "yea, I've been there and done that too" (exhibiting a category A pleasure in the laughter)?

Same can be generally said about the two different types of laughter at the exact same racial stereotype joke. A black, a white, and a purple walk into a bar ...

But yea, I agree, this can get very complicated indeed.

[Give me a bit to reread your philosophy here. It is interesting] — Merkwurdichliebe

Glad to hear you find interest in it. :up: :wink:

It is prudent for an individual, company, or institution to be respected and respectful. But I wonder, why racism specifically? why is it so uniform amongst them all? Why is there no appeal to honesty or dependabilty, or anti-murder? After all, historically speaking, dishonesty and homicide are very serious issues, as much so as any example of racism. — Merkwurdichliebe

If I may:

In a nutshell, there are basically two competing political wants among humans: A) the want for a society that exhibits “liberty (of all), equality (of innate worth), fraternity (or siblinghood, this as some might nowadays call it so as to be inclusive of the weaker sex women kin)” and B) the want for a society that exhibits “subjugation (of everything different from oneself—from infidels to one’s creed (be it theistic or atheistic) to nature at large), supremacy (which necessitates inferiors, sub-humans and all), and despotic governance (such that all else obeys one’s own group’s sum ego unquestioningly, else, often, the singular depot in charge who trumpets his dictums to all, such as by use of twitter)”.

This doesn’t pertain to any one culture, e.g. West vs. East, but is a universal competition of sorts within all populaces at large. Respect, as well as power, can be had via success in either endeavor—though the type of respect and of power will starkly differ: For example, respect for B has a lot to do with fear of, and envy for, the superior’s position (who tends to suffer from Damocles’ Sword syndrome, Stalin as a good enough example of this) whereas respect for A gets to that mushy thing which in English often goes by the term “love”, to include compassion and the like (Gandhi transformed an empire, this even though he’d not stand a change in a boxing match, and most people very much wanted him to live in peace when he started his hunger strike).

To be fair, there are also C) those who don’t give a defecation either way, going with the flow of whatever is so long as they’re sufficiently fed and such. But these utterly neutral humans don’t effect any significant influence upon what type of societal environment they live in.

For all its deficits and hypocrisies—such as those which this thread is about—Western culture as we now have it greatly honors category (A), at least on the surface. What did our oligarch-sustained politicians and oligarch-maintained media state was the reason we must invade Iraq and other parts of the Middle East? Was the justification given to us masses that of “us bringing democracy to unjustly suffering people” or was it that of “us getting our hands on their fuel and mineral resources so as to better politically and economically dominate the world however we please”? It was the former, of course—which is in fully keeping with (A). At our current juncture as a Western culture, the latter mentioned possible justification wouldn’t have worked all that well on the majority of the population.

Racism falls flatly into category (B) and is antithetical to category (A). And because of that, it becomes a telltale sign of a person being antithetical to what the majority generally respects: category (A); this, at least, in our present Western civilization. Dishonesty is something that all people on occasion engage in without exception—so it doesn’t fit anywhere near as nicely into either one category. Plus, deceptions come in a lot of different nuances: there are differences of acceptability between telling white lies so as to comfort another and telling another lies so as to control them to their future detriment while you make a profit. Can’t think of what would constitute acceptable racism, though, this among those in category (A). Whereas anti-murder intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I don’t respect my neighbor on account of him not having murdered anyone yet—just as I don’t respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life.

Things can always change, though, this for the better or worse.

I love that paradox. It reminds me of the paradox of freedom, which may result in a free person restricting of the freedom of others, in which case, the freedom of restricting the freedom of others must be restricted. It seems that the more freedom is permitted, the more restrictions become necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

Ha! Yes. Well said. The greater the freedoms for all within a populace, the greater the constraints that all within the populace must live by in order to preserve said freedoms. Irrespective of whether these constraints are intrinsically upheld by individuals or else are extrinsically pushed against what some individuals would otherwise want. Societal rules against murder, for one example, attest to this: one can either not murder any other due to intrinsically maintained motives/intentions or else not murder any other due to the consequences that would likely befall one on account of the society’s either explicitly consecrated Laws (with a capital “L”) or else implicitly maintained laws (written in lowercase). In the absence of these, the first group wouldn’t murder still, but the second group would. And when some start murdering and get away with it, the society’s freedoms are diminished (e.g., can’t walk alone at night quite as freely).

Brings to mind a literally awe-inspiring, chilling, surreal documentary, “The Act of Killing,” wherein, in part, hardcore gangsters in Indonesia label themselves “free men” on account of their freedom to engage in mass murders and maybe worse without compulsion, any constraints, or bad repercussions. (Adding a link to the trailer as a shout out for it, which I think the documentary deserves.)

my point was in line with schopenhauer1, "that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment." So that when voices from the Left claim that all Western civilization is a monolithic structure of oppression, then turn and begin advocating for the "tolerance" of oppressed minority groups (relying on a uniquely Western ethic), they highlight their contradiction.

The voices on the left who are constantly screaming about tolerance do not really care about tolerance. For them, it is an effective a political weapon because it is impossible to pin down due to its paradoxical nature (as you have shown). To win the debate, they will have no trouble calling your tolerance as intolerance, and their intolerance as tolerance, or when it suits them, calling tolerance as tolerance and intolerance as intolerance. — Merkwurdichliebe

I hear you, and I can’t disagree—progressive leaning though I am in some ways (conservative in some others; and independent in yet many more). Still, the way I look at it, there is no forest in which no crooked trees grow. Some forests have more crooked trees than others—but none are perfectly constituted of upright individuals.

I think the egotistical term of “woke” sort of gives away the underlying psychology of most who make an issue of self-labeling themselves as such. If A’s views pertain to someone who isn’t somnambulistic and B’s opposing views do … then isn’t B necessarily inferior to A in value at any time B disagrees with A? In the same vein, you’ve then also got the “brights” as was launched by Dawkins I think (contra the non-atheistic dim-witted folk – the creation of this dichotomy being a sure way to get your opponents to better understand your own perspectives, not). And, then, you have the self-labeled “Good Old Party” (this contra the Bad/Evil New Party, one would be led to believe. Disappointingly, I’ve so far never heard of anyone complaining about the narcissistic grandiosity required to label one’s political affiliations the GOP). The same bigoted attempts at an Orwellian propaganda thing all around, but in different clothes. That sums up my views in this regard.

Having said all that, I wouldn’t mind living in a more voluntarily tolerant society, myself. It’s the getting there part that’s ... well, difficult. :smile:

Don't forget that the concept of "tolerance" is also an oppressive Western invention, which somehow doesn't matter when they are pushing it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Regarding tolerance, I’ve always found this to be a philosophical landmine:

Tolerance of intolerance results in intolerance. Ergo, those who favor tolerance must be intolerant of (i.e., oppress) intolerance if tolerance is to be preserved.

One can scoff at this affirmation as a bundle of equivocations and contradictions. And yet I still find it conveys a solid truth in day-to-day life. A democracy’s tolerance for fascism results in fascism at expense of all democratic tendencies. So called pacifists’ tolerance for warmongers results in war-mongering and war, this at expense of peaceful tendencies and the peace which the latter sustain. Or, is the person who abhors murder a hypocrite for refusing to tolerate the murder of an innocent and thereby killing/murdering the murderer … or should such a person allow the murder of the innocent to occur by not themselves murdering the murderer? Less drastically, the tolerant parent ends up with intolerant children if the parent is tolerant of their children’s intolerance. And so forth. To my mind, it’s a complex philosophical issue that can have widespread applications.

One can make of this what they will in terms of left vs. right arguments. But yes, this conundrum only affects those who like tolerance and dislike bigotry. Those who admit to being intolerant or else desire for bigotry (in their own favor of course) don’t have to address this paradox: How can one preserve tolerance in the absence of intolerance for intolerance?

All the same, civility, and a democratic civilization in general, is hard to come by in the absence of tolerance for other tolerant people who happen to be different than oneself.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. :pray:

I'm commenting on general tendency to try and understand these kinds of philosophies through verbal abstractions, that's all. — Wayfarer

I interpret the refusal to answer the question with a straight-out yes or no as a recognition that there is something that Vacchagotta has to understand or gain insight into, that he doesn't yet see, such that either answer will be misleading to him. — Wayfarer

To second you're later affirmation, to me it’s not so much the verbal abstractions which words conjure but the absence of adequate, preestablished meanings/abstractions in the languages of western cultures required to gain an accurate understanding of what these Indian philosophies in large part consist of. As I’m sure you’re aware of, the Indian notion of sunyata doesn’t translate very well: that everything is nothingness/emptiness makes no sense to the typical western ear. As those English speakers who now understand what the word “zeitgeist” signifies may comprehend, mere word usage is often not sufficient to get the point across, often requiring a gestalt shift in perspectives before certain words can be accurately understood. But then, we’re more or less stuck with the use of words already commonly understood to convey meaning … which, coming full circle, and as you state, explains why the Buddha answered via silence rather than via use of “yes”/“no”. :smile:

I think if these principles are reduced to words, then there's a risk of them loosing their meaning. Indian philosophies are sādhanā, spiritual disciplines, ways of being. There are parallels to that in the recent re-discovery of the practice of stocism and Pierre Hadot's 'philosophy as a way of life'. I don't want to come across all holier-than-thou, I have mainly failed to bring any form of sādhanā to fruition, although at least I learned from the effort that there is more to it than words. — Wayfarer

Not to be rude, but I’m not yet clear on what you intended to convey through your post.

Are you, for example, suggesting that I’ve reduced these philosophical principles to words by talking about them on a philosophy forum, thereby depriving them of meaning? Or that one should not converse about Indian principles in general? If all those who hold respect for these and similar principles were to cease talking about them, would this then not mainly leave these principles open to ridicule by those who hold no respect for them, thereby steadily eradicating the “ways of life/being” they however imperfectly or indirectly establish? All the same, I might cease all talk of these principles on this forum if that's what's being requested.

If however you feel my statements, including that quoted, are erroneous in so far as not being in keeping with these principles, I for one would like to better understand why - for I so far would not find agreement in this view.

Awareness without emotions, thoughts, or inner world? — creativesoul

… adheres to the notions of Moksha/Nirvana (in the sense of parinirvana, or nirvana without remainder).

The issue that I find is, according to such doctrines, to my understanding there is no I-ness (ego in this sense) involved in this state of pure, cosmic or else boundless, etc., awareness; I-ness requires a duality between awareness and that which it is aware of—such that this duality defines the “I”—and this duality is absent in the soteriological state of being just specified. As far as I can best currently discern, Hinduism considers this pure awareness the “true self” whereas Buddhism considers it “non-self” (which I find relative to how the term “self” gets understood) but both these expressions seem to me to address the same notion of a pure awareness devoid of I-ness in which samsura is done away with in full. Which, until the time Moksha/Nirvana (without remainder) is attained, remains a bounded subject of awareness, bounded to the objects of its awareness it is perpetually dualistically defined by as an “I”/ego/consciousness.

The main point being, even though it is deemed quintessential to the occurrence of I-ness/ego/consciousness (none can occur in the complete absence of awareness, of which pure awareness consists), the state of pure awareness that is deemed the highest goal does not define any one I/ego or any set of these (again, it is perfectly nonegoic and hence devoid of any I-ness).

Hence, statements such as that of “I am pure awareness” are—given the aforementioned interpretations—false by default: an “I” can only be an awareness bounded in a dynamic duality to objects of awareness that are “not-I” and, hence, cannot ever be pure awareness (that is thereby devoid of motivating emotions, thoughts to contemplate, or else inner worlds which would otherwise pertain to it—as well as help define the egoic self in total).

Or, in Kantian terms, the awareness of which any “I” is in part constituted can be aligned to the Kantian transcendental ego, whereas the I-ness which knows itself via its objects of awareness would be the empirical ego. Terms such as "ego" can be applied differently and so hold slightly different meanings. Still, the occurrence of the transcendental ego in the absence of empirical ego can be argued to transcend any sense of egoic being whatsoever—while yet here being hypothesized to be.

With a nod to @Art48 I get how slippery language can sometime be. I so far would find it preferable to state something along the lines of "my true self is awareness itself, or pure awareness" such that this true self pertains to the I which I am as the core aspect of my being, without which I can in no way be. However, while I might aspire to become my true self (or, else, "to stay true/aligned to my fundamental self"), the I which I am does not, and can never, equate to the true self of pure awareness on which its being as an ego is contingent. For the true self here addressed is egoless and, hence, devoid of I-ness. Well, all this being an interpretation from what I deem to be a Hindu-like perspective regarding the matter.

How so, if you mind my asking ? — plaque flag

No, it's quite fine (although I'll have to take a break shortly). As my initial post on this thread intended to explain, this within a system wherein the objective world and all objective things therein are formally causal products of a necessary co-occurrence of two or more transcendental egos which interact or hold the potential to interact. These transcendental egos - as per Kant - hold within them (for lack of better phrasing) space and time (and causation) as categories requisite to experiencing anything empirical whatsoever. For them to actively interact, an equally applicable space and time will need to apply to all momentarily interacting agents. Whatever is equally shared between all co-occurring transcendental egos in the cosmos will then be impartially, i.e. objectively, occurrent in the cosmos.

The physical rock's spatial, temporal, and causal attributes are examples of what is equally applicable to all co-occurring transcendent egos in the cosmos (complexities of spacetime curvature aside). So the rock as objective thing remains constant regardless of perspective which apprehends it empirically, be the perspective human or otherwise. Two humans will then see it at the same time from different angles but yet agree on the properties of its shape.

Apologies if this doesn't make better sense of what I previously wrote.

I'm not sure that I do or not. I would argue that the shape of objective things is unchanging despite the different faculties of experience which pertain to humans (with the variations in-between; e.g. color blindness), to dogs and cats, and to bacteria or ameba. In each example, the objective thing, say a rock, will be perceived differently, yet its shape will remain constant to all (although viewed, else experienced, from different perspectives). And this, again, within an idealistic system.

Then you are simply remiss in claiming that the object has a quality of shape that "pre-dates our discovery of it." The same contradiction is present. — Leontiskos

Here is the general outline of a position I hold which to me presents an intermediary view:

On one hand, the rock cannot hold a shape in the complete, or else absolute, absence of sentience—for no distance nor duration whatsoever can obtain in the absence two or more cooccurring (and interacting) sentient beings. This position—which I presume can be argued via a Kantian worldview—acknowledges the idealistic aspects of reality.

However:

Given the just mentioned cooccurrence (and interaction) of two or more distinct transcendental egos, there then will necessarily occur distance and duration which equally applies to all cooccurring transcendental egos in the cosmos that in any way interact or else hold the potential to interact—for, devoid of any such equally applicable reality, no interaction would be possible. This distance (i.e., space) and duration (i.e., time) which is thus equally applicable to all cooccurring transcendental egos in the cosmos will then necessitate some form of shape(s) within the cosmos which is not contingent on any one mind or any one set of minds but, instead, is strictly contingent on the totality of all cooccurring minds (this as per the first clause provided above). The shapes which occur in the cosmos and are equally applicable to all individual minds (e.g., an actual, physical rock as contrasted to some mind’s particular imagination of a rock) will then occur in manners wholly unbiased to any one mind in particular—for they are equally applicalbe to all minds in the cosmos—and will thereby be objective in at least this sense of the word: a complete impartiality of being or occurrence. This overall proposition then readily allows for empirical facts in the world to obtain; such as the empirical fact of a physical rock’s particular shape remaining constant regardless of the sentient beings which might happen to interact with it and of their particular faculties of (empirical) perception.

This objective reality as just outlined would then remain relatively constant (yet in flux rather than being perfectly static) where sentient beings to be perpetually birthed into the cosmos and to perpetually pass away (or else disappear) from it, this as can be observed to in fact happen. The rock’s shape predates us as individuals and as a particular cohort—yet nevertheless, in this roughly sketched model, remains fully contingent on the occurrence of all individualized transcendental egos that interact or hold the potential to interact in the cosmos (which as a physical, objective given, is a contemporaneous result of there being numerous transcendental egos that in some way directly or indirectly affect each other—this being a type of formal causation of the former by the latter.)

The point of this post is to illustrate that philosophical idealism and empirical facts can coherently coexist—i.e., that there is no necessary contradiction between them.

It can be hard to get into the minds of people who lived just a few centuries ago, never mind 2 or 3 millennia. — BC

Hell, for that matter, it can be hard to get into the minds of people who are our contemporaries, never mind those who lived before. :razz:

Native Americans, for instance, thought much differently than the Europeans did on all sorts of matters. — BC

As many of them still do. Thought this should be said. (e.g., "water defenders" who uphold the sacredness of nature and are in opposition to western industrial interests)

Likewise Hindu yogis were always encouraged to be celibate (brahmacharya). When I said 'old school', I mean the original, now archaic, forms of those cultures. — Quixodian

I don't know. As to Hinduism, for one example, the Kama Sutra is fairly ancient. There's of course a wide array of differing practices in the ancient Hindu religion and culture, but I haven't found that it as a whole shunned sexuality. Don't mean to bicker, but, although my anthropological studies on sexuality date a couple of decades back (my thesis was on the borderline of obscenity), I remember researching a richness of sexuality in both ancient Hindu folklore and spirituality.

All the same:

But I still don't think it's easy for us to appreciate, from a modern perspective, how different sexual mores were in traditional cultures, to what we take for granted. — Quixodian

Can't find disagreement with this.

So, I am asking how do you see the relationship between religion and sexuality? — Jack Cummins

For my part, what I’ve so far found from my studies can be expressed in this generalized form:

If the religious view holds the natural world to be both good and sacred, then sexuality is not shunned and can in certain contexts be itself deemed sacred. If the religious view however does not hold the natural world as both good and sacred, then sexuality is typically shunned by it.

Face it - old school religions hate sex, and they were mostly patriarchal. — Quixodian

I find the first part of this sentence to be a vast overgeneralization. That most of the major religions we know of are patriarchal to varying degrees seems about right. However, the shunning of sexuality seems to me to be largely confined to Abrahamic religions, which have by now more or less spread their influence worldwide.

Nevertheless, religions worldwide that occurred prior to Abrahamic influences quite often looked upon sexual intercourse, or sexual union, as a possible means of closer proximity to divinity. This can be witnessed from ancient paganisms to ancient Hinduism to ancient Shinto. To list just three examples. The case can also be made at least at the symbolic level for certain forms of Tantric Buddhism.

Despite the considerable controversy to "paid-for-sex within contexts of the sacred and divine" (which I'm not trying to condone), this article on sacred prostitution does illustrate the global span of well known religions that once embraced sexuality - symbolically if not also carnally - within the contexts of the sacred.

A very insightful reply. Thank you for it.

Do you think that what "most" think is important? — Janus

When it comes to politics and economy, very much so.

The openness I'm speaking about is the absence of egoic interests. If you haven't encountered that in people, all I can suggest is that you get out more. Did you perchance know Mother Theresa and Gandhi personally? — Janus

You're addressing poetic truths. I'm addressing the technicality of reality. No person is devoid of ego, of I-ness - unless they happen to be comatose. Besides, I haven't commented on what you should do with your life. Please don't comment on what I should do with mine.

I don't see why not since this thread has hardly been a paragon of staying on topic, and I wouldn't see such a discussion as being off-topic anyway. Mikie was not just addressing God and Christianity, which should be clear if you read the OP. If you want to argue for reincarnation, then you must think it is special, so have at it...or not...but if not, then be honest and say you don't want to instead of hiding behind the excuse that it would be off-topic. — Janus

I stated that I disagree with your views on reincarnation. It directly addresses identity of being. You rely on a theory of identity based on memory: In short, you uphold that what you cannot remember as yourself is not yourself. I find this faulty in numerous ways. The ontology/metaphysics of personal identity is, however, an expansive and cumbersome topic, one that I have no interest in currently engaging in, and one that has nothing to do with the "special-ness" or lack of religious beliefs. That ought to clarify that.

I appreciate the informed clarifications and corrections.

What’s your take on the Gospel of Mary? The text is dated 60 or so years after Jesus’s death, true. But it is often interpreted to present perspectives in keeping with the values of early Gnosticism (although Gnostic cosmology is not addressed in it). The differences there mentioned between Mary and Peter – which I so far take to point to a rift between, what was to become, full-fledged Gnosticism and orthodoxy – are also mentioned in other texts, including the Gospel of Thomas.

As to my view that Jesus and the Christian Church are in many ways antithetical, do you find reason to affirm the Jesus and/or his teachings are not in direct opposition to the stringent hierarchy of religious power which was to later become full-fledged Christianity? If so, I'd be interested to learn more of why you don't find a direct opposition between the two.

The first is a shrinking away and the second is an opening up, and I don't think it takes much imagination or intelligence to be able to recognize which is the happier state. — Janus

Most I think would not find the openness of someone who is homeless and starving to be a happier, or else more preferable, state than the closedness of someone who is a multimillionaire.

The problem with the idea of rebirth is that concern about one's own state, whether in this life or the next, is an impediment to the kind of openness I'm talking about. — Janus

Because such openness can result in the absence of egoic interests? I’ve yet to witness this, even in examples such as that of Mother Teresa or of Gandhi, and find it exceedingly unrealistic.

I disagree with the rest, but don’t want to turn the thread into a discussion on the logic of reincarnation.

That conviction is fine for individuals to hold, but should not affect our political or economic lives, which are rightly only concerned with the life that is evident— this life. — Janus

First off, I admire and applaud what I see as the general gist of your stance: basically, that of tolerance for what does not harm. But not for what does.

I want to point out that the same should be said for all those who uphold the existential finality of worldly death. Yes, including in respect to those who consider it a kind of mercy, if not virtue, to kill off their entire family before committing suicide (because death is taken to be lack of all suffering). But I’m here primarily thinking of those of the following generations, both already birthed and yet to be birthed: What we do in this life is more than just about this life; its very much also about what follows.

To give better context to this, for one example, one of the pragmatic benefits to belief in reincarnation (its reality or lack of here overlooked) is that one cares about the world one helps to produce today because it will be the world into which one will be birthed into tomorrow. (To not get into possible complexities of belief in incorporeal afterlives.)

In direct contrast to this, if one were to reason with “all I am vanishes with my death”, then there is no valid reason to give a shit about others that will live tomorrow. Gain the biggest piece of the pie for oneself today at expense of all others as best one can and fuck-all tomorrow, kind of thing. Which can be an exceedingly rational perspective in acceptance of the premise that death is final.

This just mentioned non-spiritual perspective too is affecting our daily politics and economy – often with direly harmful consequences. Politically, economically, and ecologically.

I would never try to undermine anyone's personal convictions, but I don't believe anyone's personal convictions that something is the case, metaphysically speaking, can constitute good evidence for it being the case. I also don't believe that many people having a certain personal metaphysical conviction is good evidence for the truth of the conviction. — Janus

How does this not then apply to the metaphysical conviction that anything which some might deem “spiritual” – such as the belief that death to this world does not equate to an absolute cessation of personal being – can only be baloney?

After all: materialism, too, is but only a metaphysical conviction.

It’s not a waste of time for believers. That’s theology— which is fine by me. What’s a waste of time is engaging in philosophical questioning and discussion about various aspects of God when you already accept that Christian dogma is one of many and accept the anthropological point of view. — Mikie

One can approach the subject via the view that all the world’s major religions hold some aspect of the perennial philosophy in common – with each such religion applying it differently.

As to the philosophical importance of Christianity, and Santa Claus/Christmas, and the like for those who accept the anthropological point of view: these cultural traditions have vast impacts upon the lives of all westerners – regardless of their/our beliefs – and western culture is as of today the predominant culture worldwide.

As one example, one would be benefited in understanding today’s international politics by gaining greater insight into what some Christians fervently believe to be Christ’s second coming (and some Jews fervently believe to be Christs first coming) upon the fulfillment of X, Y, and Z conditions. But no such benefit can obtain if one disallows philosophical discussions of Christianity, or of religions in general.

As another, our western economies would be relatively devastated in the absence of Christmas and, hence, of the continued mythos of Santa Claus (whose intended deeper truth is basically that good outcomes result from good deeds).

As Stephen Crane put it:

Tradition, thou art for suckling children,
Thou art the enlivening milk for babes;
But no meat for men is in thee.
Then —
But, alas, we all are babes.

Thanks - good information. — BC

Hey, with pleasure!

My own primary takeaway for this often-unmentioned fact of the Trinity’s commencement is that whomever Jesus might have been and what he in fact taught is a completely different beast from that of the institutionalized religion which is Christianity.

As one example I take to be blatant, and not very controversial by comparison to many other possible observations: Whereas what we know about Jesus from various sources (the Gnostic Gospels very much included) doesn’t present Jesus as expressing or engaging in many hypocrisies, I know of no institutionalized religion that has historically been more hypocritical than Christianity. This of itself can substantiate that the principles taught by Jesus are by in large diametrically opposite to the larger sum of principles upheld by Christianity in general.

But be that as it may, glad you found the info useful.



For what it’s worth, tying the just mentioned into the thread’s new topic of Gnostic Christianity:

If Jesus was in fact largely Gnostic, which I so far don’t find much reason to doubt:

The Gnostics generally held a worldview that often addressed the biblical Yahweh as a lesser deity (in contrast to, for example, Sophia, the final emanation of the Monad which is absolute), a lesser deity that is either ignorant of the Monad or else is opposed to it and thereby malevolent to boot. This malevolent lesser deity, the biblical Lord, was more generally known as the Demiurge, who traps people into materialistic mindframes via the physical world that the Demiurge creates. (In fact, some later sects of Gnosticism, the Ophites, associated Jesus with the serpent of the garden of Eden who, basically, according to them wanted to liberate folks from ignorance of right and wrong so as to gain gnosis of the Monad.) So, if Jesus was in fact a Gnostic of sorts, then it can well be argued that the Christian Church doctrines that followed are in direct contradiction to what Jesus himself stood for.

Not sure if this is in line with what you’d like to discuss. But I wanted to mention it all the same.