Why do you believe philosophy is for talking about religion? — Jackson

For one, because many philosophers do just that: They use philosophy to talk about religion.

Why do people come to a philosophy forum to talk about religion?
— Jackson

Because that's what philosophy is for. — baker

Religion is philosophy? Do you think art is engineering? — Jackson

Read again.
Philosophy is for talking about religion, among other things.

Gratitude, it seems, is an attitude from/of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus.
— skyblack

Actually, it should come from a sense of lack, from a recognition of one's insufficiency and indebtedness. — baker

What you seem to be objecting is to my usage of the words "of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus". You are instead saying it comes from "a sense of lack". So abundance vs lack is the issue? Go ahead. — skyblack

One cannot provide for oneself. The default is lack. One is left to the mercy of millions of other beings. Starting with plants which make breathable air. All the people who produce the food we eat, who make sure there is electricity in the power sockets so that we can plug in our devices, etc. etc. etc.

If any person or other entity in this vast system of production and consumption doesn't do their job, we're left with a lack, we're left wanting. And we cannot make up for it on our own. Without plants, we have no air to breathe, and we can't make it ourselves. Without someone to process raw oil or make electricity, we can't drive our cars. And so on.

Fulfillment, abundance, surplus imply that there is a baseline that is provided by default, that we can take for granted. I'm saying the baseline is zero, a dead universe which isn't conducive to life. Everything that is more than that is not a given. Hence this is where gratitude should be directed.

I wonder which gratitude is most important. If I were perpetually grateful I'd be exhausted and feel unworthy of everything and start to stop driving my life in any particular way. — TiredThinker

Hence gratitude requires a metaphysical framework in order to be meaningful.

So, Trump supporters' belief that the election was stolen is not based upon evidence. What grounds their belief? What is such belief based upon? — creativesoul

It's not clear it's a belief. It could also be simply strategy, a claim they repeatedly make (even though they know it isn't true) because it serves their purpose to do so (to obtain high positions of power).

Which also explains why they seem immune to facts. They know the facts, they just have different plans.

The interesting question is as to why they take Trump at his word? What motivates their taking Trump at his word? — Janus

Why are right-wingers right-wingers?

I think the two main reasons Christianity spread was 1) because of Jesus and 2) (whether or not Christianity is “true” in the sense that Jesus rose from the dead) it speaks to the human condition/experience. — Paulm12

How does Christianity "speak to the human condition/experience"?

I don't feel addressed by it at all.

All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice. — creativesoul

Isn't Amurica great?!

Do drugs, or can drugs, engender a frame of mind which is conducive to insight, or even enlightenment? — hypericin

Depends on what one believes "enlightenment" is.

Wouldn't it be an error to ascribe privileged status to the sober state of mind?

Aren't both the sober and high states, both simply states, and so coequal?

And so why should I privilege my sober evaluation of my high thoughts?

In that case, it makes no difference whether one is enlightened or not; in which case, why bother.

We cause harms to others to achieve what we think is right all the time. So long as we feel satisfied that the harms were the minimum necessary most people consider this quite ethically unproblematic. — Isaac

Except when one finds oneself on the receiving end of such harm and cannot reciprocate.

As with all antinatalist arguments Bartricks starts with a bizarre premise with which no-one else agrees and then proceeds to show that it yields bizarre conclusions with which no-one else agrees. — Isaac

That's not true. I think the innocent deserve that no harm befall them, and that others, those who exist already before the innocents, have a duty to prevent such harm. I know a few other people who think this way.

It surprises me in these discussions how little value people place on their own children, already born or potential, and how little value people place on their own ability and resources for procreation.

My child would be my flesh and blood, mine, and of course I wish to have no harm come to him, so I would do everything to prevent any such harm, including not conceiving the child at all.
The only condition under which I would have a child is if I could guarantee he would not suffer, or at least if I were sure he would become enlightened, in that lifetime.

They don't deserve harm but rather need "harm" (trials) to grow — Gregory

What a sadistic method for improvement.

We cause harms to others to achieve what we think is right all the time. So long as we feel satisfied that the harms were the minimum necessary most people consider this quite ethically unproblematic. — Isaac

And another one.

Well, Fred's dead, but there is such a thing as assuming too much familiarity.

And as for being masters: If that were true, Mr. Proof wouldn't have trouble with people believing things that he thinks are nonsense. Aquila non capit muscas and all that.

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense. — ucarr

Not sure where this is going ...
I don't have much time for the forums. I don't even turn on the computer every day. I keep up via smart phone, but posting from that is too tedious. I think about the topics while washing the dishes or working in the garden, and think of the most concise way to address a point.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word.

Actually, given your authoritarian attitude, you've got the makings of someone who can get to the top.

I really am interested in how plutocracy can be abolished or at least minimized and how democracy can be strenghtened. But I don't see any realistic solutions. And neither do you, apparently:

But I have no illusions that any of this will happen any time soon. — Xtrix

But since you aren’t really interested in any solutions (all “pipe dreams”) and apparently just want an opportunity to display your very-superior-cynicism, I’ll leave it there. My mistake for engaging. — Xtrix

*sigh*

And this is how you're actually helping those at the top stay there.

I'm saying you're idealistic to a fault, to the point of ineffectiveness. And nobody's there to stop you ...

Yes. I think that process of erosion is more in one's control than is immediately apparent perhaps. One can lose faith st every setback, or one can retain it despite failures.
---
No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.
— baker

Yeah, I'm disputing the existence of those states. I'm saying that such states only appear to be impossible to bring about because we erroneously assume that the state they are intended to replace (our first thoughts) is arrived by some more 'natural' process. It isn't. — Isaac

I'm not disagreeing with either point. In fact, I agree. However, I have found that by being more deliberate, innocence and passion are gone. Many people aren't deliberate like this, so being this way has a psycho-socially alienating effect, which isn't to be underestimated. By being more deliberate, much folk wisdom becomes unintelligible, "Have faith", "Believe in yourself", "Just listen to your heart" mean nothing anymore. Add to this active derision and even ostracism (I've been accused of being a "cold bitch", a "troll", that I "never put my heart into anything".)

Like any narrative, there are limits, it has to work (predictions made using it have to turn out), but there are multiple narratives which work no better or worse than each other. We're free to choose between them.

But choose between such equally in/effective narratives on the grounds of what? Which one pleases one's ego more?

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube — Apollodorus

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing.

I'm open to improvement. What do you suggest? Russian-Chinese hegemony, or perhaps free-for-all regional conflicts throughout the planet, either of which destroying and subjugating all weaker nations including yours? — magritte

People need to learn the worth of life and property, because they have clearly either forgotten that, or never learned it to begin with.

But, of course, this isn't likely going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

As things stand, people generally defend their egos, and they do so with their lives and property, and the lives and property of others.

Yay, better to die proud, than do something that would actually protect one's life and property!!

What are we discussing really?
— Tzeentch

Basic principles of morality.
— baker

Are we, though?

Then what moral actors' actions are we discussing here? Putin's? Biden's? Those of every individual engaged in the war?

That either sounds like it would be overly simplistic or unimaginably complicated. — Tzeentch

The basic principles of morality are what is at stake here. They are what underlies every individual assessment, every individual response, every post.

Discussed directly instead through particular examples, what some people have as their first principles of morality would be too egregious to state.

The pull of political discussion is that it allows people to express their first principles of morality indirectly, and thus still feel the pleasure of doing something that would sometimes be unacceptable in polite society.

Freddy — 180 Proof

Freddy, Freddy, Freddy, like the two of you have a bromance.
You think he'd approve of your intimate advances?

Sorry, but your "solutions" sound like pipe dreams.
What you're suggesting would all need to happen from the top down. It's clear that those at the top are not going to do anything that would in any way endanger their position of power.

What part of the following quote are you too trifling to understand or dispute?
Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.
— Voltaire — 180 Proof

You make for one shitty übermensch.

Come on, answer my question.

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods?
— baker

I'd prefer my bridges be supported by sound engineering principles as opposed to devout prayer. — Hanover

Construction engineers who also happen to be religiously affiliated generally aren't known to forego the principles of sound engineering in favor of prayer. In contrast, you have more to worry about from an atheist capitalist engineer who tries to cut corners everywhere.

In fact it seems that all virtues can be turned to evil — Gregory

How?

Why do people come to a philosophy forum to talk about religion? — Jackson

Because that's what philosophy is for.

Well, a religion which one can profess and yet disregard so blithely, as most Christians do, is bound to be popular. — Ciceronianus

Awww.

Gratitude, it seems, is an attitude from/of fulfillment, of abundance, of surplus. — skyblack

Actually, it should come from a sense of lack, from a recognition of one's insufficiency and indebtedness.

Like anger (à la Buddha), ingratitude is a double-edged sword. — 180 Proof

Not for the self-confident, self-assured.

I once had a brief and unsettling exchange with a psychologist who researches gratitude. On his blog, I asked how to express gratitude when I feel thankful for things where I can't direct the thanks to any specific person, such as being grateful for good weather, that we didn't have a hailstorm, that plants grow at the expected rate, that a strange spot on my skin disappeared.

He replied per email, and expressed his suspicion that I was merely trolling him. I tried to explain myself, to no avail. Apparently, scientifically, the only thing that matters about gratitude (and gratitude is a posh research field recently) is that it makes one feel good, and to hell with whoever provided the good stuff that one is grateful for.

My solution: abolish or minimize plutocracy. Keep and strengthen democracy. — Xtrix

How, and how?

Si vis pacem, para bellum. — ssu

Then stop complaining about Russia.

Bossiness. The craving to get the upper hand.

What are we discussing really? — Tzeentch

Basic principles of morality.

And those seeking justifications for starting wars or defending them can go to hell. — ssu

How ironic, coming from someone who wishes his country would join an organization that exists for one purpose only: war.

Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners". — creativesoul

*sigh*

Talk about bad faith. You look to interpret my words in such a way as to make them easily dismissable.

I use the term "Westerner" in a cultural sense, not a geographical one. I've explained that more than once.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Except the Ukrainians and those who support them.

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant. — creativesoul

But you do. It's exactly what you do, what the whole anti-Russian propaganda is doing. Long, long ago, they unilaterally declared the Russians to be the enemy.

From what I see, your tendency seems to be to "forget" historical events that undermine your argument, but selectively remember events you think support it. — Apollodorus

Heh. This year, June 6 went by, no mention of the Invasion of Normandy. Normally in the time around June 6, national televisions show documentaries about D-Day, the daily film is "Saving Private Ryan", and such. But not this year.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. — ucarr

It's still not clear what those standards are.

It's delusional to believe that patent falsehoods are true or factual. — 180 Proof

So what? What is it to you if other people believe falsehoods?

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded.
— baker

My question was about how you'd know. I mean, it's not as if Frodo had a party throughout the book. His journey was, if I recall correctly, pretty much one trial after another without let up even up to the last chapter and then he had to leave anyway. I don't see how someone in mid-life could possibly say "well, I tried it and it hasn't worked". — Isaac

True. But I'm talking about the belief, or faith, that acting in a particular way is worth the effort.
It's this belief or faith that can be eroded.

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately.
— baker

Yes, I sympathise with that, it is difficult to get out of the idea that one's first thoughts are somehow more authentic. But there really is no reason to think they are. They just happened to have arrived first. There's nothing special about them.

No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.

What are you babbling about, baker? — 180 Proof

*sigh*

I'm not babbling. Don't be so superficial.

I'm asking you to explicate why you think there's something wrong with some people believing that "snakes talk and the young flat earth is the center of "creation" and statues bleed".

That would be practical if it had a name, given the number of times I want to point it out in people I talk to… — Skalidris

That's bosiness.