It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel. — jgill

Which is what so much climate activism really seems to be all about: activists feeling good about themselves.

I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.

If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims. — Mikie

You're missing the point. The point is that your method is ineffective. Which you then simply excuse and blame others.

To each his own though. — Mikie

And thus you annull your climate activism efforts.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
—

Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.

But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad. — Mikie

It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them.

Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.

The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes. — Christoffer

You're inconsistent.

This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.

What choice, if you plan to "run them over"?

it is because hate and contempt are the easiest ones that we opt for — Ege

Not at all.
They must be learned.

It wasn't meant as a joke. Some people, esp. those more science-minded, seem to have no inner life.

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.
— baker
Absolutely! — L'éléphant

And it's a problem, because it makes them ineffective against those they oppose.

well, Baker can a benevolent prick. — L'éléphant

*sigh*

One thing that I find so peculiar (and for which I have gotten a lot of flak) is the almost complete lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, and lack of applying the theme that is being discussed to oneself, on the spot. Esp. in Western philosophical discourse, any request for such is instantly dismissed as a fallacious ad hominem. I just don't understand this.

There is a whole existential meta-level to a philosophical discussion, yet esp. in Western settings, this meta-level is entirely off-limits, and anyone probing to this level is dismissed as a troll etc. etc. As if the norm of philosphical discussions is to engage in them, and then close the book, shut down the computer, and go and have a beer as if nothing happened.

Interested in how others think they’re perceived…and as a bonus: how different would these perceptions be in real life? — Mikie

I don't have to imagine this, I only need to think of things I've been actually told. A troll, boring, not cool enough.

This is pretty much how I feel most of the time here:



esp. around the forum greats.

(For example, I’m actually a nice guy in the real world! If I had any friends you could ask them.)

Bah, that's the thing with this forum: one never knows when one should read between the lines and when not.
And then there's the Old Boys club.

I think I’m mostly perceived as an asshole and a punk — Mikie

And proud of it!
It annulls your climate activism.

How does one read between the lines of a one-liner?

The mere action of kindness can bring a sense of euphoria to a person while hatred only brings more hatred towards each other — Ege

Yet people love to hate and despise. Perhaps the strongest emotion there is is contempt, and the most pleasurable one.

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.
— baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that? — Chet Hawkins

I meant usefulness in a meta sense.

"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]"

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.

What determines the right way? Is it how most speakers of the language use the word? If the vast majority of Arabic speakers use the word "أخلاقي" to describe acts which are condoned by the Quran, and if the meaning of a word is determined by the things most speakers of the language use it to describe, then it would seem to follow that being condoned by the Quran is part of the meaning of the word "أخلاقي". — Michael

Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.

But in culture at large, in day-to-day dealings with people, "The other person is wrong/inferior" is probably the most common explanation for differences in how people understand morality. Even at a forum like this, "You're wrong/inferior" tends to at least lurk behind so many posters' arguments.

It's not clear what determines the right way to understand morality, but it seems to be central to a person's sense of morality to take for granted that they know, in an axiomatic manner, what is moral and what isn't.

Part of why theistic systems are muddled. — Banno

As if non-theistic aren't.

I would not call NDT a conservative
— Lionino
I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy. — Joshs

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe. — Michael

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly.

Your view reminds me of Madhyamaka Buddhism, but I doubt many scientists would take up a Buddhist philosophy to such a strong extent. — Leontiskos

Why do you think that is?
If they go so far as to venture into Buddhist philosophy at all, then why not do it properly? One would expect as much given their academic credentials.

Still, what are your thoughts on using idealism as a rhetorical ploy, along the lines of Stephen Law's "Going Nuclear"? — wonderer1

This wouldn't be an isolated case, as there is a whole school of Buddhist thought whose basic approach is reductio ad absurdum:

The Prāsaṅgika view holds reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method of demonstrating emptiness of inherent existence, and that conventional things do not have a naturally occurring conventional identity.[1] Further, the Prāsaṅgika argue that when initially attempting to find the correct object of understanding - which is a mere absence or mere negation of impossible modes of existence - one should not use positivist statements about the nature of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_according_to_Tsongkhapa

Someone like Law would probably accuse the Prasangikas of "going nuclear", failing to see that there's no "ploy", rhetorical or otherwise.

I think it's sad that someone came up with the idea of accusing idealism as being a "rhetorical ploy". Such an accusation is a complete denial of lived experience.

Both Prasangikas and (some) idealists have one thing in common: they both hold that lived experience matters.

Isn't that the very nature of ethics? How we ought treat others? — Banno

Not necessarily. In theistic systems, morality/ethics is primarily about the relationship between God and man, and it's only about how we ought to treat others in the sense that this reflects on our relationship to God.

That's why I said if there's no Arabic word that means the same thing as 'moral' then they might not have a conception of good. — Michael

Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation?

Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt? — Chet Hawkins

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.
— baker

What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? — Christoffer

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language.

Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.

The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen. — Wayfarer

Whence that fear?

Come on, as a Buddhist, you should do better.

If I'm so foolish, and if it's so obvious that's the case, why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

Well, if a person makes claims of extraordinary achievement, what usually happens is that they get ridiculed or ignored. Sometimes, crucified. Drawn and quartered. Sometimes, people follow them with great devotion.

Such is the situation with those making claims of extraordinary achievement.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet. — RogueAI

Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

Who raised these young people?

*sigh*

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it. — RogueAI

Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.

And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.

"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us,
— Lionino

Ok, I’ll bite. How much do you think has been caused by us? — Joshs

How exactly is this line of inquiry helpful? Can you explain?
(Leaving aside how such a calculation should even be possible.)

When would humans be off the hook? If only 10% of global heating is their fault? Where do you draw the line? And why there?

We are fighting fire with fire and instead we should put out this fire of hatred in all of us by showing love,kindness and understanding and soon others will follow. — Ege

What on earth makes you think they'll follow??

Seriously. Can you explain why you think that "showing love, kindness, and understanding" can somehow overpower hatred and contempt? Where is there any evidence of "showing love, kindness, and understanding" having that kind of power?

You should know better.

Instead, you're the one with the smug, condescending, self-righteous blowhardery.

If you really care about global heating and the future of humanity, then how come you're willing to invest so little into finding ways to effect change in people?

The mechanics of what might be successful strategies to counteract global heating are not rocket science. Cutting down on fossil fuels etc. That's not the issue.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.

I agree with the poster above:

With this ignorance you are just giving more fuel to people who are stopping us from intelligent policy making. But I don't think that either of you are the kind to contribute to good policy making — Lionino

As long as you can blame global heating on people being stupid, ignorant, and such, that's it for you, you have finished your job.

Young people could certainly step up more than they have. Only a third of young people voted in 2022. That's pathetic. — RogueAI

Which is not suprising, when they are treated with hostility, or at least patronizing.

Just ignore the deniers. — Mikie

There is absolutely no debate left to be held other than how to mitigate the consequences and stop further temperature increase. — Christoffer

Hostile attitudes like this are really really helpful, yes. They really really inspire people to change their ways.

I think from what I'm reading in this thread, there's a lot of psychological fear of the idea that Trump might be president again. — L'éléphant

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.

Not 'psychological'. Fear, period. Although as I’ve said, I don’t believe it.

It occurs to me, speaking of psychology, that Trump’s thinking is entirely and completely subjective. — Wayfarer

The phenomenon Trump is relevant because it challenges many people's notions about the world, truth, reality. Notions they hold sacred.

What does the fact that Trump and people like him can do well in this world say about the world?

If one fears that such people can do well in this world, what does this say about oneself?

How is it that despite all of one's presumed objectivity and moral and cognitive superiority, one still has such fears as above?

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. — praxis

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself".
Anyway, this probably deserves a discussion of its own.

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans.
— baker

Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them? — Tom Storm

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance).

Seeing Buddhist Trumpistas and being overwhelmed by the phenomenon is actually a big reason why I distanced myself from Buddhism and why I took some interest in politics.

I am the Ubermensch — Brendan Golledge

Being able to type an Ü is, of course, an uberpower.

Dear lord ... Perhaps he can be disqualified on medical grounds?

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans. It's a peculiar combination of being fluent in an arcane religion devoted to the complete cessation of suffering, and to do so in an obscure ancient language, and yet be steeped in such populism as Trump's. I can't quite make sense of it.

More important than which interpretation is right is which reading is more promising from a psychological and ethical point of view. — Joshs

Surely whether some reading is promising or not is relative to the psychological, social, ethical, economical context of each particular reading, no? So we're stuck in relativity. Or do you propose a way around it or out of it?

Enactivist writers such as Evan Thompson and Francisco Varela emphasize the beneficial ethical implications of the decentering of the Cartesian subject. They assert that a thoroughgoing understanding of the groundlessness of personhood reveals the mutual co-determination of subject and world. This realization can in turn lead, through the use of contemplative practice of mindfulness, to the awareness of universal empathy, compassion and benevolence.

‘In Buddhism, we have a case study showing that when groundlessness is embraced and followed through to its ultimate conclusions,

the outcome is an unconditional sense of intrinsic goodness that manifests itself in the world as spontaneous compassion.” — Joshs

In other words, the notion of "Buddha nature". The notion of "Buddha nature" is not universally Buddhist, though. Early Buddhism and Theravada reject it.

This is why the Buddha never advocated attributing an innate nature of any kind to the mind — good, bad, or Buddha. The idea of innate natures slipped into the Buddhist tradition in later centuries, when the principle of freedom was forgotten. Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it. But when you understand the principle of freedom — that past kamma doesn't totally shape the present, and that present kamma can always be free to choose the skillful alternative — you realize that the idea of innate natures is unnecessary: excess baggage on the path.

And it bogs you down. If you assume that the mind is basically bad, you won't feel capable of following the path, and will tend to look for outside help to do the work for you. If you assume that the mind is basically good, you'll feel capable but will easily get complacent. This stands in the way of the heedfulness needed to get you on the path, and to keep you there when the path creates states of relative peace and ease that seem so trustworthy and real. If you assume a Buddha nature, you not only risk complacency but you also entangle yourself in metaphysical thorn patches: If something with an awakened nature can suffer, what good is it? How could something innately awakened become defiled? If your original Buddha nature became deluded, what's to prevent it from becoming deluded after it's re-awakened?

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/freedomfrombuddhanature.html

They assert that a thoroughgoing understanding of the groundlessness of personhood reveals the mutual co-determination of subject and world. This realization can in turn lead, through the use of contemplative practice of mindfulness, to the awareness of universal empathy, compassion and benevolence.

It's not at all difficult to understand the co-determination of subject and world, the interconnectedness, the mutuality. But it doesn't have the rosy implications Varela and so many Western Buddhists think it has. It's not only the pleasant, warm "interbeing" of Thich Nhat Hanh. It's also the ugly inter-eating that goes on at all times and all levels. Presuming to have empathy, compassion, or benevolence for those one eats is perverse.

For those who benefit from the hidden dependencies of modern life, a corollary need is a sense of reassurance that interconnectedness is reliable and benign — or, if not yet benign, that feasible reforms can make it that way. They want to hear that they can safely place their trust in the principle of interconnectedness without fear that it will turn on them or let them down. When Buddhist Romanticism speaks to these needs, it opens the gate to areas of Dharma that can help many people find the solace they're looking for. In doing so, it augments the work of psychotherapy, which may explain why so many psychotherapists have embraced Dharma practice for their own needs and for their patients, and why some have become Dharma teachers themselves.

However, Buddhist Romanticism also helps close the gate to areas of the Dharma that would challenge people in their hope for an ultimate happiness based on interconnectedness. Traditional Dharma calls for renunciation and sacrifice, on the grounds that all interconnectedness is essentially unstable, and any happiness based on this instability is an invitation to suffering. True happiness has to go beyond interdependence and interconnectedness to the unconditioned. In response, the Romantic argument brands these teachings as dualistic: either inessential to the religious experience or inadequate expressions of it. Thus, it concludes, they can safely be ignored. In this way, the gate closes off radical areas of the Dharma designed to address levels of suffering remaining even when a sense of wholeness has been mastered.

The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism
by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/rootsofbuddhistromanticism.html

We don't experience ourselves as being inside a mind, but as being inside a body which is inside the world. We don't experience our minds as being radically free or absolute but as being constrained and contingent upon our bodies — Janus

This is indeed a very common belief about how we exist, especially in Western cultures. It's how we are often taught to think of ourselves and to take such thinking for granted.

If you look at the general history of human culture it is fairly clear that humanity has been labouring under the "aegis of tutelage", fixated by the idea that there must be some absolute authority or lawgiver. The horrific crimes against humanity which such absolutism has given rise to are hardly questionable. although of course it is possible to bury one's head in the sand in denial.

As if your're not fixated by this same idea that there must be some absolute authority or lawgiver; it's just that your particular idea of this absolute authority or lawgiver is different than some other people's.
Not having such an idea would probably make one insane.

You are quite forward about being unable to define good and bad, and so I am focusing on those. Usually someone who cannot define good or bad does not go on to depend on those words in their philosophical or moral theories. — Leontiskos

I think the moral realist's point is to treat good and bad in axiomatic terms, to take them for granted, to take one's understanding of them for granted.
Because any kind of defining them or acknowledging subjective definitions or beliefs would be a type of relativism, thus diminishing the axiomatic nature of said good and bad.

Once one starts to define good and bad, one is on thin ice, a slippery slope. Which is precisely what we don't want when talking about good and bad.