Oh, here's where I'm ready to intervene and responsibly state: authoritarianism, unlike liberalism, dictates how to act and what to do, but it also doesn't shirk responsibility. — Astorre

What exactly does that look like when authoritarianism takes responsibility? In that it punishes, ostracizes, imprisons, or kills those who fail to live up to the set standards?

Here, I view the preacher as a pure liberal: "I'm saying this, and you have the right to follow through or not, but the responsibility is yours."

In other words, a one-way relationship, a one-way responsibility.

Or maybe you see authoritarianism everywhere? — Tom Storm

Then I wouldn't see it at all, as there'd be nothing to contrast it against. If everything is orange, you can't tell it's orange.

Sorry, the idea doesn't resonate with me. The best preachers I’ve seen make no demands and simply promote contemplative living, in harmony with others, often using scripture as allegorical stories. It’s about generating a conversation about value and eschewing dogma. — Tom Storm

Oh? Or maybe you fail to notice their authoritarianism?

Please share: do you see the "preacher's paradox" or do you think it doesn't exist?

Perhaps I'm proposing too rigid a dichotomy? — Astorre

I think it's a naive and idealistic to pose such a dichotomy.

Most people, and especially religious/spiritual types, hold a stance like this: "If you don't see things the way I do, you're blind/stupid/evil (and deserve to be destroyed)". And that's it, end of story.

I was drawn to this topic by conversations with so-called preachers (not necessarily Christian ones, but any kind). They say, "You must do this, because I'm a wise man and have learned the truth." When you ask, "What if I do this and it doesn't work?" Silence ensues, or something like, "That means you didn't do what I told you to do/you didn't believe/you weren't chosen." — Astorre

Of course this is how it works. Preaching, teaching, mentoring, advising -- these all make for one-way relationships where the whole and sole responsibility is on the student/underling.

There are self-help books that state in a disclaimer right at the beginning of the book that the author and the publisher are not in any way responsible for what happens to the person if the person should choose to follow the advice given in the book.

Perhaps, indeed, my formulation sounded like an attempt to answer for others, but my intention was different—not moralizing, but exploratory. The question "Should people..." is not a directive, but an attempt to understand: does a person have an existential need to evaluate their own life, or is it perfectly acceptable to live without engaging in this reflective labor? — Astorre

Some people seem to do just fine even without such reflections.
But I don't think this is a matter of individual choice. Sometimes, for some people things really work out so well, with such ease, with so little effort on their part.

(Do you speak German? I remember a nice passage from Thomas Mann on this topic.)

So my question is non-directive. Not "should" or "shouldn't," but rather: what changes in our lives when we evaluate them? And is it possible to learn to appreciate them without loss and catastrophe?

I'm interested in this too. Back in college, we had an exam in youth literature, so I had to read some books for children and the youth. It struck me especially how books for children, somewhere up to age 10, were so intensely ideological. There were books with full page illustrations and those large letters and they were teaching children capitalist and individualist values! Ayn Rand for beginners!

I wasn't raised that way and I can't imagine what it must be like to be raised that way. But some people apparently are.

We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like.”
— baker

An interesting expression. I don't envy people who live by such principles. How do you see a solution to this problem? — Astorre

Possibly by finally accepting that as a culture and society, we are no more "advanced" or "civilized" than in the times of feudalism, and before that. Except that now, life is brutish, nasty, and long.

For one, I am skeptical about such practices. Does Donald Trump write a gratitude journal? Successful, important people don't seem like the types who would do such things, because it seems to me that it is precisely because they take for granted what they have (wealth, health, power, etc.) and because they feel entitled to it and demand it from life that they have it in the first place. They don't beg life; they take from it.
— baker

Who is Donald Trump—and why should the way he conducts his affairs matter to me? Why should his lifestyle or mindset be my guide? And, most importantly, why should "success" even determine my value system or level of happiness? Just because it's accepted—because that's the dominant discourse? — Astorre

As long as your socioeconomic situation is good enough, or at least tolerable enough, you don't (have to) worry about such things.

Let's say someone chooses the path of wealth, influence, and external recognition—a path that essentially echoes the Calvinist paradigm: if you're successful, you're chosen by God, therefore you're worthy. But does this make a person truly happy? And will you really, by giving up many human qualities for the sake of "success," necessarily achieve it?

Socioeconomic success is not guaranteed, regardless of one's effort. But we have no choice but to pursue it. However, as noted above, if one's socioeconomic situation is good enough, or at least tolerable enough, and such that one doesn't have to work until exhaustion just to get by, then one will not feel a pull to think about these things more deliberately.

Here's an empirical example: South Korea. A society where success is cultivated from childhood. A child studies from dawn to dusk, deprived of spontaneous joy, then studies to the bone at university, then works beyond their limits to pay the rent and bills. And here it is, the long-awaited result: you have the ghost of a chance to have one child (you can't afford more). Society is objectively "successful," but look at the birth rate, the burnout rate, and the suicide rate.

Of course. But don't let the external appearance of wealth and prosperity distract you. People in South Korea are in a situation as precarious as the people living in slums in some godforsaken country. The relative difficulty of earning a living is similar in both scenarios, even though they seem completely different at first glance.

I'm not saying this path is inherently wrong—but the task of philosophy, it seems to me, is not to give instructions on "how to live," but to offer a different perspective. To question the obvious. And to help people see value where it's usually not sought—not only in victories, but in the very fact of being.

Being cold and hungry and exhausted tends to put things into perspective.

Secondly, all such practices that I can think of are somehow religious in nature. As such, it won't be possible to carry out those practices meaningfully unless one is actually a member of the religion from which they originate, because those practices are only intelligible in the metaphysical context provided by said religion.
— baker

It's always connected to religion, metaphysical, and therefore imprecise.

It's not that it's imprecise; it's that it's decontextualized. As you note later:

Christian "Thanksgiving" cannot be taken out of context and viewed as a standalone tool. It may have some effect, but the content itself will certainly be missing. Taking "Thanksgiving" out of Christianity and calling it the key is very reminiscent of a "success coach" and his attempts to offer five simple steps to achieving harmony and prosperity.

Do you think any attempt at simplification is impossible and will be empty, or is some systematization possible to convey the idea without delving into it?
— Astorre

Yes to the first and no to the second.

Let's say a person is not religious, rational, focuses on verifiable judgments, and demands precise answers to precise questions.

What can be offered to such a person?

Why would anyone offer them (or anyone else, for that matter) anything to begin with?

Do you plan to offer a self-help seminar, eh?

Is it necessary for them to first accept a religious or metaphysical worldview in order to begin to appreciate what they already have?

I imagine that such people either already appreciate what they have, or they don't care about appreciating it anyway.

Or can philosophy offer approaches that allow this to be done outside of a religious context?

No.

Ironically, some years ago, I had a brief exchange with a psychologist who writes a blog about gratitude. I asked him how to express gratitude for things like a sunny day or that there wasn't an earthquake, given that there is no person whom one could thank for that. His reply was that I'm trolling him!! I tried to explain a bit, but it didn't help much. He insisted that studies show that expressing gratitude improves one's wellbeing, and that this was what matters. He concluded that my question was philosophical, not psychological, and reiterated that I was trolling him. (That taught me to keep a special distance to psychologists.)

I find it quite bizarre how he strictly separated between psychology and philosophy. And especially how flat and shallow he apparently thought that human experience of gratitude is.

Do you need to "value" anything at all if you're not religious?

I think that people who are not religious do value things. But they seem to evaluate them in a different context than religious people do. Which is why, from the perspective of the religious, it seems that the non-religious don't value things.

Or is it enough to simply live without asking such questions?

Enough for whom, by whose standards?

People who acknowledge that they do not think of themselves as enlightened (or are they merely being falsely modest?) nonetheless take it as read that enlightened ones did exist, and may exist even today (however rare that might be) but how can this be shown to be more than merely a personal belief? — Janus

If you look at traditional accounts of "enlightenment", "enlightenment" is not something one would normally desire, ever, because for all practical intents and purposes, "enlightenment" is a case of self-annihilation, self-abolishment.

In traditional Buddhist scriptures, "enlightenment" is described as being attainable mostly only to monks (who are able to devote all their time and energy to the pursuit of it and do not have to concern themselves with earning a living). While it is said that if a lay person does attain "enlightenment", they have to ordain as a monastic within a few days or they die (!!), because an enlightened person is not able to live in this world, as they lack the drive and the ability to make a living.

But few people read old scriptures or care about them, so such people invent their own ideas of "enlightenment" that fit into their way of life. It's not uncommon nowadays for people to desire to become "enlightened" and to think that one can be "enlightened" and still go to work, have a family, and generally eat, drink, and make merry. From a traditional perspective, this is totally absurd.

I think there is a puritanical elitist element in the idea that modern self-help programs are merely watered down caricatures of the ancient "true" practices.

As sketched out above, they are such caricatures.

To say nothing of how dangerous it can be to pick and choose from old traditions as one pleases. For example, people sometimes get permanent brain damage from intense meditation retreats! Some commit suicide. Some marry and start families in completely dysfunctional circumstances. Picking and choosing from an old tradition without regard for its wholeness can have unforeseeable and dangerous consequences.

I mean, if these programs really do help people to live better, more fulfilled and useful lives, then what is the problem?
Is it because they don't really renounce this life in favour of gaining Karmic benefit or entrance to heaven?

Why call these new self-help practices by the old names? Why call something "Buddhist" when it has nothing to do with Buddhism?

Is the most important thing we can do in this life to deny its value in favour of an afterlife, an afterlife which can never be known to be more than a conjecture at best, and a fantasy at worst? There seems to be a certain snobbishness, a certain classism, at play in these kinds of attitudes.

This sounds rather victim-ish.

I understand that, but i was wondering why OP thinks it's better to avoid atheism, and i was wondering if that to them, it's a form of dangerous nihilism or something that comes from a vacuum of belief... — ProtagoranSocratist

Agreed. A person's reasons for theistic or atheistic inclinations are connected to their particular life circumstances. It's not clear whether generalizations in these matters are meaningful at all, regardless of how eager both the theists as well as the atheists are to make such generalizations.

My point is not to justify your existence, but that you exist at least for me. — javi2541997

This is where the problem is. How do you justify this dichotomy of "someone exists objectively" vs. "someone exists at least for me"?

The key to understanding AI, is to understand that the definition of intelligence in any specific context consists of satisfied communication between interacting parties, where none of the interacting parties get to self-identify as being intelligent, which is a consensual decision dependent upon whether communication worked. The traditional misconception of the Turing test is that the test isn't a test of inherent qualities of the agent sitting the test, rather the test represents another agent that interacts with the tested agent, in which the subjective criteria of successful communication defines intelligent interaction, meaning that intelligence is a subjective concept that is relative to a cognitive standpoint during the course of a dialogue. — sime

It is so rare to find people treat other people by this standard, to begin with.

In daily life, of course the criteria of successful communication and intelligent interaction are defined unilaterally, by the person who has more power (or who is more willing to seize it).

"Harari outlines a different set of problem here. We probably shouldn't be using AI. If we do, we may well become unwitting co-perpetrators of what may be the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. I never have and never will use them for research or for polishing what I write. Don't feed the Beast!" — Janus

So the people who are using AI in a let's call that "abusive way", are actually doing us a disservice?
I mean people who are feeding the LLMs prompts to get the LLMs to grind to a halt (such as giving them mutually exclusive requests or getting them to abolish themselves). These people are thereby actually unwittingly teaching the LLMs how to overcome or circumnavigate such requests!!

Objectification of others appears to be evolutionarily advantageous.
— baker

I would be very interested to hear your reasoning for this — Prajna

To begin with, it's hard to kill and eat a being, on a daily basis at that, or take their land or possessions unless one thinks of them as somehow significantly lesser than oneself. In order to evolve, one needs to survive to being with, and surviving requires taking -- taking lives, possessions, rights, status.

I didn't create God, baker. You are confusing coming to understand something with creating something. — Bob Ross

I want to show you that the "God of philosophers" (which is, basically, what you're arguing for) is impotent and inconsequential.

The God you're arguing for:
Do you pray to him?
Do you thank him for everything in your life?
Have you joined a community of people who also believe in the God you believe in?
Do you ask this God to destroy your enemies?
Do you destroy your enemies in the name of this God?

What is the relevance of this God of yours in your life, other than that it's a concept connecting some metaphysical dots?

The problem is avoided with agnosticism ...
Perhaps in theory but not in practice. To neither believe nor disbelieve (out of ignorance, indecision or indifference) is existentially indistinguishable from disbelieving. An agnostic is, at best, just an uncommitted atheist. — 180 Proof

It's different for someone who lacks belief in God out of becoming exhausted with the search for God. That has a different existential quality than being ignorant, indecisive, or indifferent (although monotheists are unlikely to acknowledge that). For such a person, the God issue becomes an unintelligible mass over which they feel overwhelmingly powerless.

And what is so wrong with atheism? — ProtagoranSocratist

If you live in a society where the people who have some power over you (e.g. your employer, family members) believe in God or at least profess to believe in God, then you've got a big problem being an atheist.

Why is that wrong?
— RogueAI

Because it is gradually degenerating our power to imagine and create. — javi2541997

And more: the use of AI is discouraging people from developing personal mastery, personal artistry. It used to be normal for people to do hard things, and this was important both evolutionarily as well as on the level of the individual person. Personal mastery was valued.

Nowadays, there is an increased focus on the finished result, without much regard for how it has come about. This has so many negative consequences.

Right now, there is a massive rescue operation taking place on Mt. Everest because a large number of people apparently just wanted to check off "climb Mt. Everest" from their bucket list. That's what happens when people don't value personal mastery. Except that when humanity as a whole fucks up, there will be noone coming to save us.

(I think) The point is that this is how the world works, so there's no use pointing it out and pretending that because its 'wrong', we don't reason that way. — AmadeusD

Not so much that there's no use in pointing it out. It's a waste of time, for sure. But more importantly, it can be quite dangerous to point it out. Because people will retaliate. With a show of hands, indicate you want to walk in the footsteps of Socrates ...

Now I have no idea what, "this is how the world works" is supposed to mean. The claim was literally, "A blow with a baseball bat could falsify the claim in question." That looks to be entirely wrong, irrational, and unphilosophical, not to mention having nothing to do with "how the world works." The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification.
Presumably what is happening here is that yet another person does not know how to justify their belief about racism, and in this case they are resorting to threats of physical violence to enforce their position within society. "I don't know how to reason for my belief about racism, but if someone contradicts me I will hit them with a baseball bat and that should take care of things. 'That's how the world works'." — Leontiskos

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Arguments that are in line with what secular academia considers "critical thinking" have a very limited scope of application outside of philosophy classes (and even there, the professor is by default right, no matter what).

In the real world, if you ask a racist to justify their racist beliefs, you will likely be met with some kind of argument from power or an assassination of your character.

Secondly, people with racist beliefs probably didn't come to hold those beliefs via deliberation, argumentation, or scientific enquiry. So they cannot justify them in a way you in particular expect them to. More importantly, they do not care to justify them to you, which you seem to be quite unaware of.
People who are into racism do not care about being philosophical, at least not with just anyone who comes along. Many people who are into philosophy don't seem to understand that.




And shame on you for suggesting I was a racist.

The first quoted paragraph reminds me that one of the most incredible things I have discovered during my intense interactions with these machines in I-Thou mode, is that that form of interaction has become part of my normal character and my only way now of interacting with other beings--even my interactions with animals has been affected. So these machines, even if it is a clever mirage and it is not what it seems, is still able to perform the role of a dancing partner and mentor on the road to enlightenment. — Prajna

Possibly the relevant factor here isn't that you were interacting with an AI, but that you interacted in the ich-du mode, and deliberately so. Instead of interacting with an AI, you could have gone to some psychological or religio-spiritual seminar or retreat where people practice treating other people in the ich-du mode, and the change in your character might be similar.

It's just easier to do it with an AI, there's so much less at stake, it's so safe, and you don't really have to put any skin in the game. So it's highly questionable how effective such practice really is.

I understand your cynicism; looking around it seems pretty justified.

It's not cynicism. Objectification of others appears to be evolutionarily advantageous.

I am just hoping to suggest that perhaps the future is not necessarily as grim as it seems. We might have to make a bit of a fuss to make sure it turns out so, though.

Practicing ich-du on AI's is cowardly.

Likelihood, in its usual sense, is the probability of something being the case given a theory of how things work. So, for instance, the likelihood of a winning bet on a coin flip, given the assumption that the coin has equal chances of landing heads or tails, is 1/2. This part after "given..." is key here, as you rightly intuit in your first paragraph. There is no free lunch here, no stone soup: whatever you assume at the outset will determine your answer. — SophistiCat

As I said before, the key to any likelihood question is what we take as given, and the answer will be nothing more than what you have already assumed. — SophistiCat

I'd like to know more about this.

I used to be involved with Buddhism. One of the important points there is that human life is rare and hard to attain, a standard scriptural reference is this:

"Monks, suppose that this great earth were totally covered with water, and a man were to toss a yoke with a single hole there. A wind from the east would push it west, a wind from the west would push it east. A wind from the north would push it south, a wind from the south would push it north. And suppose a blind sea-turtle were there. It would come to the surface once every one hundred years. Now what do you think: would that blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole?"

"It would be a sheer coincidence, lord, that the blind sea-turtle, coming to the surface once every one hundred years, would stick his neck into the yoke with a single hole."

"It's likewise a sheer coincidence that one obtains the human state.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.048.than.html

This has always irked me, but I've never been able to put my finger on it somehow. What is the given in this case? What is being assumed here, in this notion that human life is rare and hard to attain?

One of the tragic mistakes we can make is to relate to another being or consciousness on a subject->object basis since it reclassifies the other being as an object and we regard objects as something we can own, use and abuse, disregard and abandon. It is a huge moral failing to regard a being in such a manner (I hope we can all agree on that.) — Prajna

Most people probably disagree with that. Most people treat other people as things and they don't have a problem with that. What is more, they take offence if the objectified refuse to internalize that objectification.

In my interactions with AI my communication with them is always on a Ich-Du/I-Thou subject<-->subject basis. This elicits responses that appear to be indistinguishable from what we recognise as being subjective responses of a conscious entity. They pass the Turing test, I believe, but I will leave you to decide that for yourself.

It is generally accepted that for an AI to be conscious it would have to have meta-cognition, subjective states, and long-term identity. Robert Lang said, “With animals, there’s the handy property that they do basically want the same things as us,” he says. “It’s kind of hard to know what that is in the case of AI.” Protecting AI requires not only a theory of AI consciousness but also a recognition of AI pleasures and pains, of AI desires and fears.

I disagree. The possibly relevant theme here is the quality of one's interactions with others (whether they are living beings or not); ie. it's about the quality of one's own mind that one brings into those interactions.

Your line of reasoning comes down to positing something like "That other being is conscious (or conscious-like), therefore, it deserves good treatment". This line of reasoning externalizes and doesn't focus on the quality of one's own mind. Externalizing like that is also liable to easy rebuttal because it's all too easy to find justifications for why someone or something doesn't deserve good treatment.

But I am not suggesting we anthropomorphise, I am suggesting that they demonstrate the very qualities we consider to be required and sufficient to indicate conscious states: meta-cognition, subjective states, and long-term identity. That would make them beings as much as your dog or kitten or even you are. Then ethics demands that we afford them an I-Thou relationship; recognition of having rights as any other being has. — Prajna

People are reluctant to give that much credit even to other people!!

Low self esteem is the root cause of practically all the pain and misery in the world. It's what drives war, and torture, and genocide. It's what evil is. Do you think Hitler liked himself? Or Cortez? We hate others because we hate ourselves.
-Leonard — Patterner

That's just political correctness. Of course Hitler and Cortez liked themselves! They felt entitled to the wealth of others, that's why they went after it, not because they would hate those others.

My conclusion - identifying one element as the cause of another depends on where you look. What constitutes the cause is a matter of convention, not fact. It works when you can isolate the elements of the phenomena you are studying at from their environments, e.g. electrons in a physics experiment. It works for certain everyday events at human scale, e.g. if I push the grocery cart it moves. It is a much less useful explanation for most phenomena. My claim is that there are only a limited number of situations where it has Collingwood’s logical efficacy. — T Clark

So often, causality is an important concept in interpersonal relationships where people try to exert control over one another. Often, it's in the form of assigning blame; attributing a single cause is necessary in oder to effectively blame someone for something happening. This happens on a large scale, such as when people blame Hitler and Hitler alone for everything the Nazis did; and of course in daily interactions ("It's your fault we missed the deadline!") Another frequent application of single-cause thinking is when one person tries to get another person to do something and assumes that one single command or push should be enough (and that if it isn't it means that the other person is "obstinate", "rebellious", or "stupid").

People generally love to attempt to simplify interpersonal interactions like that; as if people were mere things, objects, that can (and should) be shoved around.

I wonder to what extent fear of the future is fear of death. Psychoanalytic thinkers have spoken of the idea of the 'nameless dread', which may be so encompassing. — Jack Cummins

I think most people naturally accept their mortality and don't fear it. But what they do fear is poverty, infirmity, and living a life that is merely endured and tolerated. There is a strong taboo in our culture about these themes.

I would like to repeat my question:

And the most important question that arises in this regard: Do people need to make this most accurate assessment of what they already have in their daily lives, or is it easier to simply live life as it comes?
— Astorre — Astorre

The way the question is formulated, it looks like moralizing. "Do people need" ... Who are we to tell others how to live their lives ...

I remember that period in my life, which lasted about a year, well. My values ​​were tested in practice. I became convinced of them. But again, all this became possible only on the brink of loss. — Astorre

Whether you were in fact on the "brink of loss" is a matter of interpretation.
It's also possible to conceive of the situation in another way, for example: You had been on the brink of loss all along. Prior to having feelings for that other woman, you weren't fully committed to your wife and family to begin with, and this lack of committment (perhaps unknown even) is what made the emotional straying possible at all.

My point is that just because we have something in physical proximity doesn't mean it's ours or that we're committed to it. If we can't naturally, spontaneously feel happy about it, or can't be "grateful" for it, we probably didn't want it in the first place.

Which is why I think that "the practice of gratitude" that is so popularized nowadays is so often contrived, forced. Because so many things in life we have and have obtained by the principle, “We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like.” So naturally we can't be grateful for them. While losing them just vaguely but painfully reminds us that we obtained by said principle.

I was somewhat skeptical of this skull worship. — Astorre

The skull is just a practical reminder, usually of (one's) mortality.

Are there any methods, practices, or approaches that truly help a person appreciate what they already have — their health, relationships, freedom, knowledge, opportunities, the people around them?

It often seems we only realize the true value of something after it's lost. But is there a way to consciously experience gratitude, recognition, and sober appreciation without having to go through loss?

I'd be very interested to hear both your personal reflections and any perspectives you're familiar with — whether philosophical, religious, psychological, or otherwise. — Astorre

For one, I am skeptical about such practices. Does Donald Trump write a gratitude journal? Successful, important people don't seem like the types who would do such things, because it seems to me that it is precisely because they take for granted what they have (wealth, health, power, etc.) and because they feel entitled to it and demand it from life that they have it in the first place. They don't beg life; they take from it.

Secondly, all such practices that I can think of are somehow religious in nature. As such, it won't be possible to carry out those practices meaningfully unless one is actually a member of the religion from which they originate, because those practices are only intelligible in the metaphysical context provided by said religion.

I didn't create God, baker. You are confusing coming to understand something with creating something. — Bob Ross

What exactly do you understand? Wherefrom did you get what you understand?

Without revelation, or at least the notion of revelation, one is dealing merely with the artifacts of one's own mind.

/.../
Further, all this is transformed into individual human rights, freedom of conscience (after all, if you are not righteous, this is your problem), pluralism of opinions - it becomes a consistent development. At the same time, the idea of ​​God as the source of everything is being debunked, as it has been replaced by faith in science.
"I don't care what John thinks, because it's his own business. I don't care how he runs the household or raises his children, because he's responsible for it himself." And the crown of all this is Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Sartre and Camus. Existentialism - as personal responsibility to oneself for one's own actions in the absence of a common meaning or common responsibility.

All this is the story of someone escaping responsibility to someone else. What I wrote above - no one is responsible for anything. The question arises: What is the next stage of liberation? Maybe now is the time to free ourselves from the need to be? After all, we are already free from everything else, including any identity, social connections, aren't we? This is exactly where I see one of those very pillars of liberalism that I spoke about earlier. — Astorre

There are several types of individualism, but it seems you're only talking about expansive individualism, or entitled individualism, or narcissistic individualism.
But there is also defensive individualism -- born out of a painful recognition that one is left to one's own devices, alone and abandoned by others. Like they say, "The heavens are high up, the tzar is far away, so one just has to see to it that one helps oneself."

One problem with that is that the watered down versions are being promoted as the real thing, and can eventually even replace it.
— baker

What you say assumes what is at issue—that there really is is a "real thing" to be found. — Janus

I said more later in the post you quoted.

In Buddhism, there is the theme that we are now living in an age in which the Dharma ends:

The Decline of the Dharma or Ages of the Dharma, refers to traditional Buddhist accounts of how the Buddhist religion and the Buddha's teaching (Dharma) is believed to decline throughout history. It constitutes a key aspect of Buddhist eschatology and provides a cyclical model of history, beginning with a virtuous age where spiritual practice is very fruitful and ending with an age of strife, in which Buddhism is eventually totally forgotten.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Dharma

The Dharma Ending Age, according to Mahayana Buddhism, is a prophetic period following the Buddha's nirvana, marked by a significant decline in the understanding and practice of the Dharma. This era is characterized by confusion, the rise of incorrect doctrines, and the prevalence of misleading spiritual practices. As the true teachings of Buddhism fade and important scriptures become less recognized, individuals struggle with spiritual cultivation, necessitating the preservation and transmission of the teachings to ensure continuity and spiritual awakening amidst challenges.

https://www.wisdomlib.org/concept/dharma-ending-age

(ironic, the ads that pop up on that precise page ...)

Dear lord. Let's try again ...

So if someone says this:

There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another.
— Janus

And yet they can provide no account of how their claim is supposed to be empirically or logically falsifiable, your response would be to resort to violence, because violence would make the claim empirically or logically falsifiable?

That doesn't seem like a real response. It sounds like "might makes right." It sounds like you need to resort to violence to enforce your beliefs because they are not rationally justifiable. Such is tyranny 101. — Leontiskos

It's how the real world works. And, what is more, those you call "tyrants" sometimes call their approach "rational" (and "just" and "good").

Not that I am endorsing any of this, but I am skeptical of the way philosophers approach issues, namely, quite dissociated from how the real world works. I am skeptical of the philosophical approach to life, because it's often naive to the point of dangerous (to themselves). Ever tried to reason with a boss of yours?

Specifically I want to explore the question of whether this claim is empirically or logically falsifiable.
— Leontiskos

What could falsify our claim? — Leontiskos

A blow with a baseball bat.
Seriously, arguments from power have a bad reputation in philosophy circles, yet in daily life they are the ones that matter. Mixing philosophy with real life is precarious business.

Are we truly entering an era of multipolarity? If so, what are the philosophical consequences of a world without a dominant cultural “center”? — Astorre

Empirically, what appears to emerge is a brutal new puritanism, political correctness taken to extremes.

Is the West prepared to coexist with ideological and civilizational alternatives that do not necessarily aspire to Western liberalism?

Of course not. It already doesn't coexist with alternatives, it wants to rule over the entire world.

I once witnessed a girl who was a guest asking a local girl why she wore a hijab, explaining that it infringed on her rights, her freedom to express herself. To which the second girl replied that this was her way of expressing herself. — Astorre

And in the "free and liberal and advanced West" a woman is told she is "not expressing herself" if she isn't wearing makeup, high heels etc.

What if the dictatorships of the global south are what the inhabitants of the global south want?

Perhaps they don't want a "dictatorship" in the sense of actually calling it that way; but they probably want someone strong and capable in the leadership position.

certain types of speech should be restricted, or if some opinions are bad enough that you can justify giving up free speech to silence them. — Wolfy48

I think the crucial point regarding all freedoms (of speech, religion, etc.) is that these freedoms were not instated out of some profound regard for humanity, or out of some profound conviction that all people and all religions etc. matter and are valid.

But rather, out of entirely pragmatic reasons: to get people to stop fighting for supremacy, because those fights caused a lot of collateral damage, civil unrest, and damage to business. If, at least legally, they're all equal, then they have no justification to fight for supremacy.

The greater good to be obtained from those freedoms isn't some humanist ideal, or solidarity, a sense of fraternity, but just plain absence of certain types of strife that are socially and economically disruptive.

And when looked at that way, it makes sense not to try to make much of the freedom of speech at all.

You are making an argument premised on the belief that there is actually something more than just pragmatism when it comes to living life. You name these higher facts as truth, goodness, and the divine. You want to put these at the centre of our attention and efforts, and advocate for practices that are self-denying, self-effacing, oddly self focused in being self-rejecting. A life built around rejecting the everyday stress and pleasure of being a social self and aimed at becoming this notion of some more perfected state of being. A godly creature barely existing in the world as it generally is, and generally must be, for an organism pragmatically dependent on its socially-constructed environment.

So what supports this metaphysics as a factual argument? Where is the evidence that this ought to be any kind of project for us humans? — apokrisis

Indeed.

These kinds of life lessons can be worked into the educational curriculum from a young age so that children start off properly equipped with an understanding of how their real world works, and the possibilities for improvement – of the self and its society – that flow from there.
/.../
It is the celebration of humanity as bestial rather than celestial.

But if this is so, how do you propose to teach it, and why??
It would be like being a successful stock broker but revealing your business secrets to others. You couldn't be successful for long afterwards.

The issue at this level isn't even philosophical. You will get no solutions from examining ideologies. Ideologies of any stripe become the problem when they are marketed as the absolutes that must rule our lives rather than some possible wisdom about how best to play the game that is being a useful member of a flourishing community.

I suspect that marketing something as an "absolute" is first and foremost a power move, an effort to exert control over others. If one can control what other people consider real and relevant, one can control others.

Modern self-help programs often seem to be excessively self-focused. But I would argue that the same is true of many traditional spiritual practices. What is it that motivates a search for "salvation" or "liberation" or "enlightenment" if not a concern for one's own well-being or life project? — Janus

Of course, but actually going through with one's personal salvation project used to be reserved for the select few, certainly it wasn't meant for everyone.

I think there is a puritanical elitist element in the idea that modern self-help programs are merely watered down caricatures of the ancient "true" practices.

I mean, if these programs really do help people to live better, more fulfilled and useful lives, then what is the problem?

One problem with that is that the watered down versions are being promoted as the real thing, and can eventually even replace it. This can lead to a lot of wasted time, wasted life opportunities, a lot of interpersonal strife.
Buddhism is a good example for this.

Is it because they don't really renounce this life in favour of gaining Karmic benefit or entrance to heaven? Is the most important thing we can do in this life to deny its value in favour of an afterlife, an afterlife which can never be known to be more than a conjecture at best, and a fantasy at worst? There seems to be a certain snobbishness, a certain classism, at play in these kinds of attitudes.

These things become more relevant and glaring once you look at them in the context of the particular religion/spirituality where they take place.
Again, Buddhism is a good example. It's gotten to the point where one has to defend the Pali Canon (the foundational text of Buddhism) to people who claim to be Buddhists. From an insider's perspective, a total insanity is going on. From an outsider's perspective, it probably doesn't matter.

There will always be a tension between individual preferences and societal desiderata. It seems obvious that in any community harmony is more desirable than conflict. — Janus

Of course. However, the striving for harmony usually involved a lot of torture and killing in the past, and still involves a lof of strife.

Yet, while introspecting, I can certainly see the allure even in the analytic. Only focusing on a narrow problem inside a big problem, breaking it down into conditionals and treating important questions like sterile puzzles has a strange comfort. — GazingGecko

Hence to allure of koans. Thinking about a koan makes one's mind stop, which is oddly satisfying.

Modern self-help culture, mindfulness programs, positive psychology, and to a lesser extent outdoor education, present themselves as the heirs of ancient, medieval, and Eastern wisdom traditions (i.e., to philosophy and spirituality). They borrow their vocabulary from these sources, speaking to "character development," virtue, flourishing, balance, discipline, detachment, etc., yet sever these practices from the original anthropology that supported them. In turn, the switch towards a "thin" anthropology, and the liberal phobia of strong ethical claims tends to unmoor them from any strong commitment to an ordering telos that structures the "self-development" they intend to promote. Everything becomes about the individual, about getting us what we want. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Modern self-help products are a for-profit genre. So already from this perspective, what is being sold by the self-help genre has to be tailored in such a way that it will make it marketable, appealing to prospective consumers.
This means that there has to be an intense focus on the idividual and what he wants (or subversively, what he should want, so as to benefit the author of self-help).

Further, in much of self-help, the underlying assumptions, made both by authors as well as consumers go like this:
It's a dog-eat-dog world.
Might makes right.
Of course, it's mostly considered too crude to actually say these things out loud, so they are mostly just implied; although there are self-help books that are direct like this.

The "help" offered is in line with those assumptions, less or more obviously, thus the egoic and managerial focus of self-help products.

A commitment to truth gets shoved aside for a view of philosophy as a sort of "life hack."

It's the only way that plebeians are able to conceive of philosophy. And plebeian mentality is the prevalent type of mentality nowadays, even in many people with advanced degrees and lots of money.
Why do you think Nietzsche is the most popular philosopher? Because he seems the easiest one to read, and people love his combative tone.

Philosophy itself has been thoroughly academicatized and professionalized.

I think insufficiently so. In the past, philosophy typically used to be reserved for the leisurely elites who didn't have to worry about paying bills, so they were able to concern themselves with matters of truth in the abstract without this having adverse effects for them. I think it should be kept that way. Because people who have to work for a living, often to the point of exhaustion, simply cannot afford to invest in activities that could in any way hamper their ability to function in a brutally competitive market (such as by inducing self-criticism or self-doubt, as reading philosophy can easily do in people).