public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy
— Nikolas

That pretty much nails the case against excellence in journalism, or maybe journalism at all. From the POV of the oligarchy, the plutocracy, or the kleptocracy, who the hell wants public enlightenment? Keep the masses as uninformed about their reality as possible.[/quote

The death of journalism means that Liberty is dying. Nietzsche said that God is dead and wondered what would replace God. When liberty is dead, what form of statist slavery or tyranny will replace it? I shudder to think — Bitter Crank

"Never has the individual been so completely delivered up to a blind collectivity,
— Nikolas

Insane. Absolutely insane. We are living in a time of unprecedented individualism as demonstrated by the self-centered response of Western countries in response to Covid. — Maw

↪Nikolas I find Ms. Weil's writings quite insightful and occasional moving; they, however, belong to a historical moment even darker and more despairing than today, reflecting a "grace" which could not enrich or sustain her brief life. Ms. Weil seems to fatally confuse self-abnegation & justice in her martyred imagination. — 180 Proof

What is so attractive about being a mere number?
— Nikolas
Rather, what is so attractive in seeing other people as being mere numbers?

But one thing is obvious; liberty is being rejected for the security of becoming "a mere number" within a grand collective.
Democracy is forcing people into that. Because in democracy, the only hope for success that one has is success through sheer large numbers. — baker

↪Nikolas
It is hard to know, but I would not dismiss the visionaries and outstanding thinkers who have paved the way with their insights. It seems to me that relativism has gone too far in deflating the whole quest for truth. — Jack Cummins

↪Nikolas
I saw that part of Pfhorrest's discussion as interesting because it is questionable whether we can find the correct answers to many philosophical questions. I know that you suggested in a discussion we were having in another thread that we could find truth rather than opinion. It does seem to be an underlying one in many of the threads. It does seem that so many of the issues in philosophy involve mysteries and throughout history people have sought to answer them differently. Obviously, each question is unique. I am inclined to think that, generally, we may only be able to come up with opinions, but that some opinions are far more knowledge based than others. — Jack Cummins

- Pragmatic arguments to adopt general principles that could be summed up as saying that there are correct answers to be had for all meaningful questions, both about reality and about morality, and that we can in principle differentiate those correct answers from the incorrect ones; and that those correct answers are not correct simply because someone decreed them so, but rather, they are independent of anyone's particular opinions, and grounded instead in our common experience. — Pfhorrest

Until this thread, I did not question the importance of studying past philosophers and getting a college's stamp of approval validating we are philosophers. While participating in the thread I have come to wonder if a lot of that past philosophy taught in college classes has relevance to us today? We have serious global problems and what value does philosophy have if it does not help us resolve those problems? But perhaps we need to ask new questions that are relevant to today? What are the best economic choices we can make? What political choices should we make about working with the rest of the world? Should we mind our business when people are being killed or should we get involved? If we should get involved, how should we get involved? What are the best philosophers we can read to answer today's questions? — Athena

↪Nikolas
↪Nikolas
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." Socrates
— Nikolas
— Bartricks

Have you found a reference for that quote yet? — Bartricks

↪Nikolas So we can tell who is best to helm the ship by looking for someone who professes to have no idea how to helm the ship?

What if they were telling the truth, and honestly, truthfully know even less about helmsmanship than the people who say they do but probably don't?

Or, maybe, the conclusion is that nobody can accurately be assessed as the most apt helmsman? Do we then go unhelmed(?), or do we have to somehow figure out between all of us how to navigate the ship, knowing that none of us can be fully trusted as the certainly best helmsman on board? — Pfhorrest

↪Nikolas The problem is that we have no way of judging who on the ship is an able helmsman independent of the opinions of those on the ship, who all think themselves able helmsman. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as able helmsmanship or that it is not better that the ship be helmed by someone who is able rather than someone who merely thinks he is but isn’t. It’s just to say that everyone on the ship reckons that they are the most able helmsman and so on account of that the one who most deserves the helm.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion. — Pfhorrest

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great,
— Pfhorrest

Maybe and maybe not. That is why we have democracy. We attempt to choose the best leader and we agree to follow while standing ready to take on the responsibility of leadership.

It is very important to realize we are all limited and I don't think we should look for kings, but should submit to leadership. Not depend on the leadership as a child depends on a parent, but submit to the leadership we choose, while also standing ready to argue for what is right or take over the role of leadership if need be.

We all need to be philosophers so we can recognize good philosophy and put that above us, not a man. — Athena

↪Nikolas The problem is that we have no way of judging who on the ship is an able helmsman independent of the opinions of those on the ship, who all think themselves able helmsman. That’s not to say that there is no such thing as able helmsmanship or that it is not better that the ship be helmed by someone who is able rather than someone who merely thinks he is but isn’t. It’s just to say that everyone on the ship reckons that they are the most able helmsman and so on account of that the one who most deserves the helm.

IOW an actual philosopher-king would be great, but everyone equally reckons that they themselves would be that philosopher-king, and so anyone who stands up and says “away with all your mere opinions, I am the one with true knowledge!” is most likely just yet another fool who thinks himself wise, his supposed knowledge just more opinion. — Pfhorrest

There are probably certain criteria for measuring success, and even amongst people who have been published there are some published writers and philosophers who are considered as more important or significant. I would certainly not say that popularity is necessarily the main measure, but some people might disagree. So, I am asking what does it mean to say that one is a philosopher, and who are the 'real' philosophers? — Jack Cummins

↪Nikolas Chocolate gives you diabetes and studying makes you smarter. — Huh

Suffering pleasure and truth are all the same. — Huh

↪Nikolas Its all just context, you can't just have a one sided coin. — Huh

Suffering isn't caused by truth it's caused by being unable to withstand it.↪Nikolas — Huh

Truth is pleasure — Huh

That out of the way, let's pick up where we left off. As far as I can tell, Simone Weil's "...infinite and perfect good..." (above) is just another way of saying pleasure. It's difficult to say whether Simone Weil and others who share his sentiments are aware of this or not but to be fair, the clever disguise pleasure uses to fool people that it's something else viz. "...infinite and perfect good..." is very convincing and hard to see through. Good whether one conceives of it as "...infinite and perfect..." or not is, after all, ultimately associated with pleasure (heaven, nirvana, etc.). — TheMadFool

In my own philosophical search for truth - I've gone down a lot of dead ends; and then had to retrace my steps to find out where I went wrong. That's a painful process - but necessary. I love my country, and while I'm agnostic, I respect religion - for its role as the central coordinating mechanism of civilisation through thousands of years.

I take no joy in the suggestion the Church particularly, and Western civilisation in general made a similar mistake in relation to science - 400 years ago, and we haven't recognised the error, and retraced our steps, even as we approach upon extinction, we continue - as if science were naught but a tool to be used and cast aside on a whim. Science is also an increasingly valid and coherent understanding of reality we need to observe, and act in relation to - particularly with regard to the application of technology, or we are doomed. — counterpunch

So, what I am saying is that guilt and self hatred, combined with an emphasis on overcoming pleasure can be extremely toxic. Getting back to churches and monks, I do believe that the reason people were meant to sit and kneel on hard surfaces was because it is uncomfortable. And, the idea idea of lent involved an emphasis on fasting and purging oneself. — Jack Cummins

On the flip side we have humans and the relevant dissimilarity between humans and non-human animals is that we, with our powerful imagination, look to beyond this world - paradise, heaven, nirvana, are all conclusive proof of this fact and notice how all of these are essentially about pleasure. Since we've lost interest in this world, truths no longer matter to us for truths are important only to the extent that they allow us to live to see another day. The world beyond, a place of pure pleasure is what drives, what motivates us.

To sum up then, contrary to how Aristotle thought it was - non-human animals being about pleasure and humans being about truth - it appears that the "truth" of the matter is actually the exact opposite. — TheMadFool

The idea of objective values came about only when hunter gatherer tribes joined together, and needed explicit social rules with an objective source of authority i.e. God, to prevent any small dispute splitting the multitribal social group into its original tribal components. This is the origin of religion, and political power.

When science was discovered, religious political power supressed it - and so it is power that is opposed to truth, not pleasure. Pleasure is effectively a bribe - to not oppose power with truth; like Descartes - who withdrew his thesis 'The World' from publication while Galileo was on trial, wrote to flatter the Church, and landed a cushy job in the Royal Court of Queen Christina of Sweden. It didn't go well - and he died soon after, but that's beside the point. — counterpunch

↪Nikolas
I do feel that what you have said about denial of pleasure as the path to truth is so wrong. Not on the basis of Plato, but when I was going to a fundamentalist church, I began to try to live in the way that you describe and it brought me to a state of deep depression and despair.

My own experience of wishing to sacrifice pleasure in favour of truth at one stage in my life brought me to the point in life where I felt that there was no point in getting out of bed at all. I found that the experiences of trying to deny myself all pleasure simply brought me misery and hell as 'truth'. I would say that it was not a form of 'healing' truth at all. In fact, it felt like the opposite of truth.

You will probably say that that is because I am looking at it from the wrong perspective and should not have felt negative, but I am simply describing the way it worked out when I tried the ascetic path for a few weeks when I was studying, In contrast, when I have some pleasures, I feel able to think and function positively, and explore creativity. Have you abandoned all physical pleasures? What would living without pleasure be? Would it be just spent reading and meditating all day, although I expect one would still be expected to work?Presumably, any form of sexual pleasure would be completely out of the question, and any other forms of enjoyment. I am really not sure that would be the way to finding any kind of truth. You may feel that I am exaggerating but I am trying to think through what the life of sacrificing pleasure would be in the full sense, and it is probably how some monks have lived. — Jack Cummins

I don't know what that means, but the reason I think truth is not valued, is not about pleasure seeking as such. It's about power - particularly religious power that lacks the modesty to set aside dogma in favour of reason. Think of the trail of Galileo - where he proved the earth orbits the sun and was put on trial for heresy. It undermined the truth value of science; such that science was used, but not observed. We developed and applied technology for power and profit - and live, as pleasure seekers in that false technocracy. — counterpunch

I don't think it's truth versus pleasure. I think its power versus truth. I think there is an innate attraction to truth as a consequence of evolution. The organism has to be correct to reality; physiologically, behaviourally, and with us, intellectually - or it dies out.

We built power structures based on supposed truths i.e. God, and then discovered science - and power prevented science being recognised as (the means to establish) truth. We all now live in the shadow of that mistake, and are doomed unless we correct it. — counterpunch

I think that the quest for knowledge is so different in the time of Plato in this information age. I am not saying that Plato's ideas aren't important but that he was writing in a different time in history. The ancient teachers were aware of wisdom which is valuable but their ideas need to be seen in their historical context rather than in isolation. I don't think that it would be particularly helpful to expect a person to seek objective knowledge through detachment from sensory experiences now. Even Buddhism stressed the middle way. It seems to me that the biggest challenge of our time is not to go beyond the sensory but beyond the robotic level.

The challenge is not necessarily about finding objective truth but about increasing consciousness, and critical awareness, to see through the murkiness of the bombardment of information we have available before us. I suppose the pleasures available on the internet are a possibile source of distraction for some. Many people I know find that they spend so much time watching television. I prefer listening to music, but I think I would probably go crazy if I could not relax by listening to it. — Jack Cummins

If anything, it could be that awareness of one's own sensory pleasures allows for a more balanced perspective of self awareness. In some ways, we can only follow the path to greater conscious awareness, and that may be a more humble endeavor. Of course, we may wish to grasp 'truth', but that does depend on a whole set of epistemological and metaphysical assumptions, which are very difficult to establish. — Jack Cummins

↪Nikolas
Perhaps it is a matter of many people needing a better understanding of pleasure. The people who are caught up in acts such as genocide are not necessarily the ones who are likely to be looking for truth.

However, it is complex because as I understand the picture of Hitler, he was interested in some spiritual teachings related to purity. However, he ended up with a whole emphasis on purging the world of people who he saw as less 'pure'. Even those who quest for 'truth' may make atrocious mistakes. — Jack Cummins

↪Nikolas
It could be that rather than intentional sacrifice of pleasure being needed, as the starting point for the quest for truth, that the actual experience of its absence will lead individuals in that direction naturally. In other words, the misery of many individuals in our turbulent times may be enough to trigger the pursuit. Many are facing hardship as the comforts and pursuits of pleasure they have been used to are vanishing around them rapidly. — Jack Cummins

↪Nikolas And I'm suggesting that these pursuits are not necessarily mutually exclusive and that truth/wisdom-seeking is, for some, the highest, most rarefied, of pleasures. — 180 Proof

Philosophy is "love of wisdom", not wisdom itself; and love can be, at its most pleasurable, erotic. — 180 Proof

Our choices are not truth and pleasure. Truth and knowledge are instrumental - we look for them, we're built to look for them, because we need them in order to ask the only real question - What do I do now? I haven't thought much about it, but I guess pleasure is instrumental too. It's the signal our body sends us to let us know we're doing what we're supposed to do. — T Clark

What makes you think truth, the encounter with it, is not pleasure itself? Many years ago a professor of philosophy faced her undergraduate class of almost 100 students and said with an intensity that itself nearly proved her point, that "Philosophy is erotic(!)". Near as I can tell, she was correct. — tim wood

Can you use math to describe philosophy? — Huh