Reading baker reminds me of offensive thinkers like Kierkegaard. — hanaH

That's the kind of point a Western philosopher might make, though, is it not? Yet you write as if the Western philosophy was a simple beast with clearly demarcated territory.

It's as if you deny the legitimacy of critically thinking about spiritual matters. It's a classic position. — hanaH

Where I and several other posters disagree is that I put forward the view that religion/spirituality is something far stricter, less open, less democratic, less accessible, far better delineated than they present it as.

It is the way in the internet works. — I like sushi

I find it's far more widely spread than just online, and it existed long before the internet. People have been jumping to conclusions for millennia.

There used to be a time when this was considered primitive, but nowadays, it appears to be the norm, something positive, valuable.

I was talking about something philosophical, understanding the existence of a cause which is unobservable, through observation of its effects, with the application of logic. You came and tried to change the subject, by describing the unobservable cause as something spiritual, implying that it could not be understood through the means that I presented. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are the one who brought in God in the first place.

Now you are trying to equate "religious" with "spiritual"

I always do that.

in an attempt to exclude the philosophical aspects of religion, from religion, and claim that philosophy has no place in religion. Obviously you are wrong though and I have no need to present an argument for that, because it's so obvious to anyone who knows anything about religion. Your writing just appears as absurd, and undeserving of a response.

If a hundred philosophers jump off a bridge, then we must do so too ...

religion/spirituality is supposed to be fair game, for everyone. Now that's strange!
— baker

Actually that brings up something I wanted to discuss. The Christian faith says salvation is open to all who believe. Christianity is said to be a 'universal religion', open to all, without regard to social status or past sins, for which all is forgiven by believing in the Atonement. — Wayfarer

Indeed, it's open to all who believe. This is the epistemic and ethical requirement. It's safe to say that most people in secular academia, or at this forum don't meet this requirement.

It's all too easy to overlook the criteria that religions set for what it takes to know their truths.

I've been reading an essay on Schopenhauer's philosophy of religion, which makes this observation:

Schopenhauer argues that philosophy and religion have the same fundamental aim: to satisfy “man’s need for metaphysics,” which is a “strong and ineradicable” instinct to seek explanations for existence that arises from “the knowledge of death, and therewith the consideration of the suffering and misery of life” (WWR I 161). Every system of metaphysics is a response to this realization of one’s finitude, and the function of those systems is to respond to that realization by letting individuals know their place in the universe, the purpose of their existence, and how they ought to act. All other philosophical principles (most importantly, ethics) follow from one’s metaphysical system.

Both philosophers and theologians claim the authority to evaluate metaphysical principles, but the standards by which they conduct those evaluations are very different. Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa. He nonetheless recognizes that the metaphysical need of most people is satisfied by their religion. This is unsurprising because, he contends, the vast majority of people find existence “less puzzling and mysterious” than philosophers do, so they merely require a plausible explanation of their role in the universe that can be adopted “as a matter of course” (WWR II 162). In other words, most people require a metaphysical framework around which to orient their lives that is merely apparently true. Therefore, the theologian has no functional reason to determine what is actually true. By contrast, the philosopher is someone whose metaphysical need is not satisfied by merely apparent truths – he is intrinsically driven to seek out actual truths about the nature of the world.

By this, Schopenhauer doesn't seem to account for the fact that most religious people have been born and raised into their religion. Being born and raised that way makes religiosity one's default, not a matter of choice. So I think his analysis of religious people does not apply.

Schopenhauer concludes that philosophers are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by theologians, not vice versa.

And theologians think that theologians are ultimately in the position to critique principles that are advanced by philosophers. So now what?

Due to the Christian heritage of the West the distinction between faith and philosophical analysis has become blurred.

This has not been my impression at all. It has been my experience that religious people tend to criticize philosophers for being stuck in theorizing or doing nothing but theorizing. They look down on philosophical analysis (to the point of considering it a perverse waste of time).

On the one hand, 'faith' says 'simply believe!'

Again, this has not been my experience. Sure, an outsider is likely to experience religion this way, ie. as a matter of willing oneself to believe this or that, as a matter of taking things on faith. But not an insider, esp. not those born and raised into a religion. These people don't take the religious claims "on faith"; on the contrary, for them, they are facts (an epistemically trivial at that; ie. requiring no cognitive effort in order to be known).

In religions, faith seems to mean 'faithfulness', 'loyalty', and not a particular epistemic/ethical activity where one would hold something as potentially or tentatively true.

On the other, humans have an ineradicable desire to know, to understand, to seek reasons. But at the same time, Western science and philosophy, insofar as it is naturalist, walls itself off from anything deemed 'supernatural'. So a religious solution to man's existential angst is out-of-bounds, because it's religious. That is something that comes up time and time again in these discussions.

Sure. But this is a problem only for the non-religious.

The 'rational community' is something like educated, rational humanists. Sure, one can cling to cultural Christianity or whatever, but keep it out of politics, keep it in the private sphere.


The true and the good are determined socially, through science and democracy, etc. — hanaH

Then whatever happened to the Theory of Evolution, the evolutionary struggle for survival, the survival of the fittest, and so on?

Unless 'God'(or whatever) just is the text itself, merely reading about God would not typically be understood as a direct experience thereof. — hanaH

Why not?

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1

That's not doubt, that's caution.
— baker
In my mind they are closely related. — Wheatley

How?

In my mind they are the same. Aren't worries, uncertainties etc the roots of doubts? Sure they are for me. — dimosthenis9

Doubt is a verbally expressible, informed, justified wavering between two options. When you doubt, you waver between A and B, and you know your reasons for doing so.

Worries, uncertainties, anxiety are more general, often not even verbally expressed/expressible.

What I've been lamenting in the Covid threads is that fact that I think there used to be a perfectly adequate standard (not perfect, by any means, but enough to filter out the crap). Matters regarding some field of expertise are discussed either by those experts or by reference to them. It's as simple as that. If you've met the threshold of epistemic responsibility to become an expert in some field, have no discoverable conflict of interest, no history of deep bias, then you have the right to be taken seriously and respectfully in any discussion within that field. Likewise laymen discussing that field are extended this right if they (in context) cite, or paraphrase the positions of these people who have met this standard.

I know I might sound like a typical old man, but this is how things used to be done (at least in my circles, which I admit are quite limited). The decay started before Covid but has been exaggerated massively during the crisis to the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them. Indeed, as here, one's conclusions are being used as a measure of the diligence one is assumed to have used arriving at them. — Isaac

I think this is simply what happens when science is popularized into scientism and people with a plebeian spirit (are allowed to) publicly express themselves.

I'm always reminded of this:




What has changed with the coming of social media (and reality shows) is that now, more people get to express themselves in a relatively durable and wide-reaching medium. This way, the ratio between the publicly available opinions of experts and the publicly available opinions of non-experts is quite different than it used to be, say, up to 30 years ago, and it's a ratio in favor of the non-experts.
Also, we now have a culture where a person is supposed to have an opinion on just about anything and everything, lest they be considered "uninteresting", "uninformed", and thus socially less desirable.

I.e. pretty much what everybody else is saying, including me. So where is this big disagreement now? — Olivier5

The disagreement is in your mind, manufactured by you.

The more you doubt the less susceptible you are being manipulated and be taken advantage of. Scam artists and many types of fraudsters prey on gullible peoole who never learned to doubt. — Wheatley

That's not doubt, that's caution.

- - -

Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc). — dimosthenis9

That's not doubt, though. It's worry, uncertainty, indecision, that feeling of unease.

The care offered by a professional is like being friendly without being a friend. It's an important distinction that probably needs to go with a lengthy dissertation on professional boundaries and the like. — Tom Storm

Which is very tricky when it comes to mental health, esp. on the part of the patient. For the therapy to proceed as intended by the therapist, the patient must internalize the mental health theory that their therapist is working with. I think that's expecting a lot from the patient, esp. considering that there is a multitude of theories (so why pick this one?).

But how can you have such good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence, if you're not actually an expert in the field?
— baker

Here I'm thinking of 'good' reasons as being those experience has taught us tend toward satisfactory results. Habits of thinking. If a person saying that tobacco is safe is paid by the tobacco industry, I don't need to be an expert in lung physiology to make a 'good' decision to take what he's saying with a pinch of salt. It's a habit of thinking I've developed to assess the possible conflicts of interest in those presenting me with evidence.

Evidence of previous bias (always coming down on one side of an ambiguous dichotomy), ideological commitments (politics, academic allegiances), publication biases (shock value, issue-of-the-day)...all of these can be used heuristically to weight evidence, or reject it entirely, without needing any expertise in the field at all.

The more one assesses evidence, the greater a bank of habits one develops. That's not to say that these habits are all right by any objective measure, only that they've proven themselves useful. The layman might rely on those things listed above, someone more versed in statistical techniques might additionally recognise signs of p-hacking or a suspiciously selected stratification - but still, none of these require expertise in the field being evaluated. — Isaac

I can't quite articulate my concern with this as succintly as I'd like. So, for the time being, I'll limit myself to this:


To use your example with the safety of tobacco: I don't think any smoker actually believes that tobacco is safe. Sure, when pressed, when ambushed, many smokers will say that it's harmless, or that they won't get sick from it, and such. But I think this is just the situational ego-protecting reply they give because they are pressured, and not something they really believe in. Because if you talk to those same people in a calmer hour, or listen to them otherwise, they make it clear that they know tobacco is not good for them, but that they can't quit, that it has too much power over them. And these people can also be very critical of "experts" telling them that tobacco is harmless.

I think that when it comes to many luxury products and services, notably alcohol, drugs, junk food, gambling, prostitution, people do not rely on experts, but already have formed an opinion that those things are bad -- regardless of what some expert might say. It's because those products and services have a grip on them (often, they are addictions) that people tend to have a complex, ambivalent response to them. In these cases, there is no issue of people examining evidence provided by others, such as scientists, no issue of good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence.


On the other hand, with important things such as medical procedures and medications, it's also not clear what role is played by good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence. From what I've seen of people, it doesn't seem like they decide in medical matters based on evidence or the opinion of experts, but are, rather, guided by their medical crisis, their need, financial resources, and sometimes, coincidences. For example, I watched an interview with a woman who had cancer and underwent treatment (chemotherapy etc.). Later on, after the treatment, she said that she didn't want to know anything about the treatment while she was receiving it, but that she just went along with what her doctor told her. She said she made a deliberate effort not to research the treatment, her options, and so on; that she focused on getting better and that she had faith that being as ignorant about the treatment as possible would serve her best. I think many people are like that. Moreover, it seems doctors generally prefer that kind of patient: optimistic and obedient.

I think that if one were to start researching the evidence for and against a medical treatment, this would be an endless quest, resulting only in paralysis of analysis, and postponement or denial of treatment altogether, or undertaking it without much faith (which could jeopardize its effectiveness).

However, (esp. retrospectively) justifying ones' medical choices, is quite another matter. Such justification has much to do with giving socially desirable answers, maintaining a good self-image. If "Because I trust science" is currently the socially desirable justification, then this is the justification one gives, regardless whether one has actually acted in line with it or not.

I think in line with the above we have to consider that Stoicism is a philosophy of rationally guided behavior (especially after reading about the divine logos guiding us all, women and men alike). This is what stands out as perhaps most appealing in Stoicism. — Shawn

Then why your glum OP?

I'll just stick to the title of this thread.

Does your mechanic need to care for you to do a good job on your car? I'd settle for non-judgemental professional skill over emotive caring most days. — Tom Storm

Do you think this example with the car mechanic is analogous to a person visiting a mental health care professional?

If yes, why?

My question is: How valuable is the help of those who do not actually care? Can a system that is based on salary replace genuine human kindness? — Wheatley

That's not help then, it's a business transaction and should be understood as such.

Indeed, something you should try every now and then.
— baker

:lol:

Coming from you, this is hilarious. — Xtrix

*sigh*

Make no mistake: I'm not writing this because of you or for you, but because of some other people reading this.


The sad irony is that you're manufacturing my dissent. You ascribe to me stances I don't hold, and then you argue against them, and smear my name in open forums.

When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.

There's a pithy saying -- "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, but the religious man puts his life on the line for what he believes."

And in this case, you're like the religious man. While I think scientific claims should be held much more lightly, more cautiously, for it is in their nature to be temporary and to be replaced with newer ones, as scientific research permits.


All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum.

Read. I posted a link explaining what emptiness means in Theravada.

But there's no evidence that Epictetus was "ambitious" in the sense we would use that word, I think. — Ciceronianus

I wonder what kind of person would develop the kind of outlook on life and life advice as captured in the Enchiridion (and other works of the Stoics). And the only description I can think of is "ambitious". Because the philosophy of the Stoics isn't the philosophy of someone who has given up on life, it's not quietism; it's also not the philosophy of someone who is simply trying to develop a soothing narrative for their troublesome life. No, it's the philosophy of someone who is proactive; someone who seeks to be in control, but who also recognizes the limits of it. And who never gives up. The best description I can think of for this is "ambitious".

(This also seems to be the aspect of Stoicism that is so appealing to modern enterpreneurs among whom the philosophy of Stoicism has a mesure of popularity.)

The ancient Stoics often would elaborate on how a true Stoic Sage, who had perfected himself, would think and react to events, but it's recognized this was an ideal. I don't know if anyone ever became a Sage, but if they did I doubt it's something they would claim to be.

So then it could be correct to qualify Stoicism as an aspirational philosophy.

It's very important whether any Stoic attained sagehood, ataraxia, aequanimitas. Humility aside, if they have not attained the highest goal of what they're teaching, then they're giving advice they themselves were unable to follow through. Which means we're justified to doubt their advice, and their whole philosophy.

They are actually your three wise monkey's again. And I guess the interpretation of this favored line of yours is an attempt to suggest that I am not seeing the full picture. — Tom Storm

No. I don't know if your optimism is genuine or a matter of being diplomatic. So here's that to figure out.

Presumably through some kind of selective blindness. Is this a smear, or was your intent less cynical than it appears?

I want to see the breadth and depth of your mind. As I always do, with everyone. But particularly with people who appear optimistic, who "love life".

It's prudent to know whether the person one is talking to is a true optimist about life, with profound reasons to back up such optimism. Or whether they are a bitter cynic or a sad fool diplomatically hiding behind a veil of optimism. I have no use for the latter types.

And while fighting strawmen of your own making, the real monsters take over!

Nihilists and buddhists have a lot in common. — I like sushi

Then list those commonalities.

Interesting how you choose to see this. My experience over 30 years suggests no contempt and good results. — Tom Storm

You and your three monkeys again.

Do any ideas work for everyone?
— Tom Storm

Why is that so? Surely you, given your profession, must have some explanation for it. You can't just chalk it up to Mercury retrograde.
— baker

People don't always have explanations. But I do know that if someone has significant brain damage (which is very common in people with trauma histories - injuries/suicide attempts/overdoses) they may not be able to participate for reason of memory, and diminished capacity (for want of a better term).

Do you think that CBT or REBT would work on someone like Prince Siddhattha? I think it wouldn't. Would you say the reason would be that he had some kind of brain damage?

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both.
— baker

I don’t see how your sadistic appetite is relevant to our little chat. — praxis

*sigh*

When evaluating something that is proposed as a coping strategy, one has to test it to see how it performs under pressure.

If we just look at the aspect of CBT, there is a large body of evidence that indicates it can be much more beneficial than silly self-help sound bites, even for gutter dwellers.

You’re not explaining your views so I’m assuming all this self-empowerment silliness amounts to nothing more than trolling.

Read the god damn thread and keep up with the discussion, instead of me having to repeat to you everything over and over and reply to everything to you specifically.

When would you say someone intends to do harm? — khaled

When they intend to do harm. Sometimes, people make this intention clear, like when they say in public "I'm going to shoot Frank Miller dead".

If this genetic modification is some religious ritual, and so the intention isn't to harm, but to fulfill the religious duty, in other words, there is no malice behind it, would it still count as "intent to harm"? — khaled

That looks more like negligence.

I am not your "massa", nor anybody else's, nor would I want to be. I don't have sufficient energy to continue; you're too "high maintenance". — Janus

No, you're lazy.

Can we live in doubt?

In doubt of what?


"To live in doubt of X" would mean to be able to stay focused on X for all of one's waking hours. That doesn't seem realistic.

If there are times of day when one doesn't "live in doubt of X", then, clearly, it is possible to live without doubt in X.

An admirable skill for a modern PhD, but has little to do with the degree. — jgill

It shouldn't have only little to do with the degree. If someone gets to prance around demanding to be reffered to as Dr. So And So, then they better deliver accordingly.

The connection to CBT is clear and I studied Albert Ellis, who developed the foundations of this intervention based on some ideas from Stoicism (particularly Epictetus) and others. As REBT or Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. — Tom Storm

My problem with Ellis is that he was a staunch humanist, without ever explaining the foundation of his view. You just have to believe that life is worth living, and you just have to believe that you're a worthy human being, that's it, end of story.

To me, the whole of REBT (and CBT) hinges on this belief. And if one doesn't take it for granted, the therapy won't work.

One of the most powerful ideas I ever heard (when I heard it first 35 years ago) is - "It isn't what people say to you or do that upsets you, it is how you chose to react.' Simple and almost a homily on the surface, but so often when people 'go off the rails' it is because they have been unable to hold this in mind.

I think that this is actually a recipe for contempt of others. And people in fact feel better when they apply the motto you're mentioning -- but that's because they've found a way to despise the other person and to feel superior to them.
It's similar with forgiveness: it feels good because the forgiver has finally found a way to feel superior to the other person, has finally found a way to despise them.

Do any ideas work for everyone? — Tom Storm

Why is that so? Surely you, given your profession, must have some explanation for it. You can't just chalk it up to Mercury retrograde.

But you understand Epictetus was a slave, right? Slaves generally weren't considered powerful men in the Roman Empire of the first century C.E. — Ciceronianus

Surely slaves were ambitious? Or at least our particular slave here was.

But here's the catch: How many Stoics actually attained ataraxia, aequanimitas?

- - -

That might be because it was said by someone very powerful... But you know what? It's been used powerfully with people who are homeless and on the margins for many years and it often transfers effortlessly to them. People who slash themselves with broken bottles and run into oncoming cars as a way to manage emotional distress can change using this approach. — Tom Storm

If you say so. I have no doubt that there can be post-traumatic growth.

But could a once well-to-do person who has fallen on hard times pick themselves up and rebuild their life using this reduced stoic philosophy?

Does if work for everyone? Of course not. But it does for many.

Why doesn't it work for everyone?

It doesn't matter when you say life starts there is always a point before that when the genetic modification could have been done. — khaled

Okay, you could even genetically modify the sperm before it meets the ovum.

If you did it with the intention that the man/the sperm would produce defective offspring, that would, at that time, make it an attempt to cause harm to the prospective offspring. Since you did the genetic modification with the intention to hurt someone (even though that person may not even exist yet), the principle "When there is noone to whom the injustice could happen, there is no injustice" does not apply. Once the offspring would be born and it could be shown that their defects are due to your genetic modification, you would be guilty of causing harm (the degree of the guilt depending on the degree of the defect).

The key terms in such a case are intention and attempt.

The problem with such cases is, of course, that they can be very difficult to prove. (However, every day, the police lock up terrorists who are caught attempting an attack.)

Also, if something is a process with a temporal duration, then the process needs to be taken as a whole, not as discrete, separate parts that have nothing to do with eachother. For example, if you set a bomb to a car and set it so that it will go off when the car is started, that doesn't mean you're innocent for as long as nobody gets into the car and turns the key.

This is why you read a paragraph until the end and don't nitpick the start to dismiss the rest. — khaled

Imagine, for a moment, that I'm just trying to make the conversation more concise.

A doctor philosophiae is supposed to be someone who can teach others the love of wisdom. How many people with a Ph.D. do you know who qualify as people who can teach others the love of wisdom?

TV is not called 'the idiot box' for nothing. — Wayfarer

A little bit south of where I live, it's called "the devil's box".

Modern-day stoicism is all about well-being, and well-being is not opposed to a proper (not deficient or excessive) sense of pride and dignity. Indeed, this really isn't rocket science. — praxis

I'd love to see these modern-day stoics (and the old ones, too, actually) cope with some real problems, like poverty on the verge of homelessness or grave illness, or both.

Drop political correctness for a moment and try to envision yourself as a powerful member of a powerful tribe. Can you do it?
— baker

I’m not a powerful member of a powerful tribe, but I can fantasize that I am. Are you suggesting that ancient stoics were all a bunch of daydreamers?

Read before replying.

That's in roundabout how the Stoic feels about himself, except that his reference frame isn't the powerful tribe, but Nature, the Divine.
— baker

Why would that be necessary to practice stoicism?

Because otherwise, you're just a poor sod in the gutter repeating some silly self-help soundbites to himself.

Epictetus, in the first century A.D. wrote in the Enchiridion: “Men are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.” — Tom Storm

Sounds like something said by someone very powerful, someone on whom others depend for mercy.

And the resemblance to Buddhism is the life is suffering aspect. Agreed about the solution to the problem. The AN does not usually need karma, reincarnation or similar ideas, unless some kind of metaphor (which just makes it a Western version something similar to cause/effect/contingency). Buddhism, like Pessimism sees the system suffering of desire.. Schopenhauer had some great parallels he mentions in The World as Will and Representation. You should read passages from Book 4. The 8 fold path and such is interesting, but no such prescription except wholesale asceticism, compassion, and aesthetic contemplation is offered by Schop and I believe he thought that only certain character-types will be able to endure the path of asceticism. — schopenhauer1

In contrast to Buddhism, AN works on the premise that death (as is understood conventionally, death of the body) is the only real solution to the problem of suffering. Consider what this tells us about AN's view of life, the universe, and everything: that life is miserable, and then you die. Antinatalism is a blatant case of bad faith.

It's because antinatalism operates out of such bad faith about existence that it isn't and cannot be persuasive.


On the other hand, Buddhism operates on the premise that despite all the misery, the universe does offer a viable path out of suffering. So Buddhism operates out of good faith.

Nihilists and buddhists have a lot in common. — I like sushi

No.

But some people want to claim that some kinds of faith constitute knowledge. — Janus

Some do. But other times, this is how you interpret their claims when you have left your sphere of competence and ventured into foreign territory without even noticing it.

While X is a matter of faith for you, this doesn't mean it's a matter of faith for everyone else, or somehow objectively, per se.

Other people may know things that you don't know, and they can demonstrate their knowledge to their epistemic community (and they don't care much whether they can demonstrate it to you).

You're not giving others that credit. You hold yourself as the authority over everyone else's knowledge.