Frankly James Riley is correct.

Talking about other man morals while not knowing him or understanding his creations, not wanting to become better just to feel better and above everyone else. — theone

He started this. He started this with misrepresenting me viciously and refusing to desist. He has always treated me like I am his underling and that I am committing a grave offense for not submitting to him. He wants me to acknowledge him, while he refuses to acknowledge me. He wants to set the terms. He wants to rule over me.

Meanwhile, your molars rot.

I would place the burden of proof upon you but even I am not that mean. That would call upon you to go back and find the impetus for my contempt of you. You could not be expected to find where you refused to deny that you were a fascist or a racist, for that would be you proving yourself wrong and you can't be expected to do that. After all, you are Baker. — James Riley

Guilty until proven innocent? It's not you who needs to prove your accusation, it's I who needs to defend myself against it and convince you otherwise?
See, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes you a Trumpista. De Torquemada would be happy to have you on his team.

I don't exist. I am whatever you say that I am. I think whatever you say that I think. My intentions are whatever you say that my intentions are. I am a figment of your imagination. I don't exist.

Therefore, if he was an atheist, he must have been a secret one. But I have seen no evidence to suggest this. — Apollodorus

For example, by some Muslim standards, Christians are atheists. But does that make them atheists?

To go further East, there are many deities in Buddhism, for example, but a person not worshipping them is not deemed an atheist by those Buddhists.


It seems that the source of the problem goes back to the secular definition of theism and atheism that are to the effect of:

Theism: belief in a god or gods
Atheism: lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods

Probably no actual theist ever defined theism as "belief in a god or gods", nor atheism as "lack of belief or disbelief in a god or gods".

In any case, he seems to be holding some interesting and intriguing views, especially in the eyes of moderns who are unfamiliar with the religious beliefs and customs of Ancient Greece. — Apollodorus

Of course.

A particular type of atheism is usually shaped in reference to the theism it opposes, and so just like there are many theisms, so there are many atheisms. This is how an atheist with a Hindu background differs from an atheist with a Roman Catholic background; their respective atheisms are focused on different things. Then there is also the type of atheism that is not an opposition to a particular theism, but the result of a genuine ignorance of a theism. Futher, there is the type of atheism that is the result of the person becoming exhausted by the topic of theism.

Even if Socrates was an atheist by his contemporary standards, he can't be recognized as an atheist by modern standards.

Who, pray tell, are these thinkers who assume Socrates was a secret atheist?
— Valentinus

I don't know of any such thinkers. — Apollodorus

Actually, I think this is (or was) a popoular idea that one readily picks up in secular academia. I can't think of any names, but thinking back of philosophy classes at school, we'd talk about most of the old philosophers as if they would be secularists, non-theists, as if they would be "the good guys". At the time, it was a theme to recontextualize the religious/theistic claims of philosophers and to dismiss them, gloss over them. It's how secular academia made Descartes into "one of us".

Don't think that your misrepresenation and your contempt go unnoticed.
People like you make the world not worth saving.

So one can consistently hold that God is omnibenevolent and judge him. — khaled

I guess insane people can be consistent like that ...

All most people got as proof of vaccination is a flimsy paper card that is easily lost or destroyed. — Count Timothy von Icarus

In the EU, a covid passport is a paper or digital document with one's covid status (recovered, vaccinated, or tested) linked to an online database that can be accessed online by those who have to check if a person has a valid covid passport. Data is fed into this database by medical personnel at vaccination and testing facilities.

So even if you lose the paper document or your smart phone, you can always get a new copy of the passport.

In my opinion Buddhism differs , firstly it does not believe in a supernatural Being who grants eternal Bliss in the hereafter to those who worship Him . — Ross

Buddhism is far too versatile to make generalized claims of this sort.

For example, the Pure Land Buddhists, a major school of Buddhism, believe in salvation by a higher being.

I don't know if you answered the central question in my thread which was that Christianity is focused on salvation whereas Buddhism is not. It focuses on overcoming suffering and achieving happiness in THIS world not some kind of eternal Bliss in another world, — Ross

What is that, if not salvation?


Also, the majority of practicing Buddhists (ie. those in Asian countries) probably don't focus much on nirvana, but just on getting a good rebirth.

- - -

I don't think Buddhism has one official book like the Christian Bible. It is not an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but is like philosophy where anyone can make an argument for this or that, and if is liked, it gets passed on. Buddhism is not "God's truth" or "God's commandments". — Athena

Don't get confused by the apparent versatility and multitude in Buddhism. At the ground level, when it comes to actually interacting with actual Buddhists, it's a clearly definable religion, with clearly specified scriptures, clerical hierarchy, religious practices, etc., and sharp lines between the various Buddhist schools, and the subschools and lineages within them.

The idea of an anything-goes kind of Buddhism is a Western bastardization that has no basis in the actual Buddhist traditions.

You may have a point there but do consider "gutters" and prisons" metaphorically. — TheMadFool

No, literally. If poverty would in and of itself be a virtue, then gutters and prisons should be full of good, morally upright, even enlightened people.

In a religious context, poverty is a virtue only to some extent for the clergy, but not for laypeople.

However I would argue that there are many Christians who do not have a focus on salvation. This tends to be most acute in some forms of Protestantism. — Tom Storm

That's because they take for granted that they will be saved.

It's only the few scrupolous Roman Catholics who live in fear of messing up their one and only chance who care about salvation.

Good point but I'm only interested in the Philosophical aspect of Buddhism not the religious part. — Ross

What use is a philosophy when living by it makes you a loser?!

There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.
— baker

Correct. But this is what examination of one's thoughts, words, and actions is for. — Apollodorus

To what use, to what end?
Unless one is omniscient, or gifted with enormous self-confidence, then how can one possibly know what is truly, objectively good?

Perhaps we can't be sure that he wouldn't. But we can't be sure that he would either. Personally, I doubt that Plato would have supported Hitler or Stalin. None of them sounds like the ideal philosopher-king to me. Besides, this is all speculation.

We don't know, exactly, and there is just too much at stake to open ourselves up to a philosopher from a past time and take him as our spiritual master.

Selective infanticide was practiced in Ancient Greece? So, female infanticide is not practiced in Modern India? And abortion is not being practiced all over the world?

We aren't talking about taking Hindus or some other people as our spiritual masters.

Well stated for once — DingoJones

*sigh*

You're lucky. At pretty much any other forum you'd be banned for misrepresenting and attacking another poster like you do.
But, hey, Jesus loves you!!!!!

I could go on, but the the failures of reason/logic go on and on, and I tire. — James Riley

In the end, irony will be the winner!!!!!!

What jurisdictions? Nursing homes and hospitals? — Cheshire

All internal and international travel for EU citizens; it's not possible to enter a EU country without a valid covid passport. Then, depending on the EU country: access to public transportation, schools, bars, restaurants, cinemas, any gatherings of more than 50 people, sports facilities, hair salons, cosmetic salons, access to some medical facilities.
These are just the most notable ones, but there are more, and, as promised by the governments, even more to come.

How might one go about finding out God’s standards? — khaled

By being a member of the chosen tribe. IOW, it's not up to one's own choice.

Right. Where does this preclude us from judging said God? God seems to have even made it possible seeing as how we can easily iudge him.

Sure. But we might still go to hell.

What I’m saying is that perhaps predictions and forecasts of the psychological kind could be just as those for the weather are, not so much mysticism but rather something founded in logic and reason about how time progresses. — Benj96

Much of a person's mental and physical behavior is habitual, ie. regular, repeated. So it's no surprise that there is a measure of predictability to it.

As I said, we don't know those. — khaled

Perhaps you don't, but that doesn't mean everyone else is the same as you.

So anyone who pretends to judge God by God's standards is bullshitting. He has no clue if he's correct or not.

If God is a tribalist, and a particular person is a member of the chosen tribe, then they very much have the clue.

Again, what does God being God with a capital G have to do with us being unable to judge him?

Because, by definition, God precedes and contextualizes us, makes us possible. Thus, whatever we do, is made possible by God.

In jurisdictions where covid passports are mandatory for many activities, the matter of whether it is moral or immoral to refuse to get covid vaccinated has been rendered moot anyway, and made into a matter of practical convenience. If you're vaccinated, you can go anywhere you want, do anything you want, and you don't need to get tested. Who wouldn't opt for that?! But whether it will stop the pandemic is another matter.

But if the Israel scenario is anything to go by, then, even if the majority of the population gets vaccinated, this will not stop the pandemic.

So neither tradition preaches "the prosperity gospel", baker — 180 Proof

They both teach people to work hard, earn a lot, and support the clergy.

Neither views poverty as a virtue when it comes to laypeople.

No. Successful people, like kings and emperors, throughout history have been notoriously miserable or dissatisfied people. — 180 Proof

No. You're just sourgraping.

More to the point; Siddhārtha Gautama's life improvde and his wisdom grew only after he relinquished princely wealth and priviledge;

How did it improve?? He became unfit to earn a living!

and Yeshua ben Yosef was it seems a poor carpenter and itinerant preacher who directed his follows to give away all they owned, that the rich will have a much harder time getting into heaven, and that one should live by grace "in this world but not of this world".

Don't forget that he and his immediate followers lived off the mercy and generosity of others, they were parasites, unwilling to meet their own needs on their own. A society could not function this way if everyone would adopt such a lifestyle.
And if a principle is such that not everyone can live by it, due to objective constraints, this means that said principle is immoral and should be abandoned.

In any case, "socioeconomic success" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for (seeking) wisdom.

Yeah, which is why gutters and prisons are full of enlightened people!

Whereas there isn't a rational reason to not get vaccinated (except in those with health conditions that make vaccinations dangerous), and so can't be excused. — Michael

But not in the case of this pandemic. Nobody gets excused, everyone is put into the same category.

Right in the beginning when they first started vaccinating, the plan was expressed that first the healthy should be vaccinated, in order to protect the most vulnerable. This is the standard approach to vaccination in general.

But in about a week or so, this concern completely died out, and a medically dangerous practice was adopted of vaccinating the most vulnerable first.

It's not clear whether there is any other medication where this approach is taken. Normally, if a person is already immunocompromised or otherwise of vulnerable health, they aren't forced into medical treatments that further stress their already compromised immune system. But with covid, all this caution was thrown to the wind.

Is it not that case that in most traditions, wisdom privileges aestheticism? — Tom Storm

Surely you mean asceticism.

But your thought is nice too. Heh.

It's a reference to this idiom:
"The Only Good Indian is a Dead Indian"

https://www.jstor.org/stable/541345#:~:text=%22The%20Only%20Good%20Indian%20Is%20a%20Dead%20Indian%22%3B%20the,traditional%20life%2Dstyle.


The form "the only good (the best) X is a dead X" has wider applications.

the best of companions — TheMadFool

... for what? Misery?

I just don't see what "socioeconomic success"has to do with "wisdom". — 180 Proof

The purpose of wisdom is to improve one's life, and that includes improving one's socio-economic status. Agree?

My point is that judging God by human standards is in conflict with the basic definition of God.
— baker

Then by what standards shall he be judged if not by humanist standards? — khaled

God's standards.

What else do you think omnibenevolent meant?

Think of God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist. Now, because he's God, his perspective is all that counts, and if he happens to be a capitalist businessman or a tribalist, then this passes for omnibenevolence.

God. One cannot hold, even if just for the purposes of argument, that God is omnimax, and then judge God, and still think one is being consistent.
— baker

Yes one can

How??

If there is no such causal link then the argument is unjustified — Ghost Light

Indeed. Again, if we think of God as a capitalist businessman, the Abrahamic narrative and the way things are in the world (with all the pain, suffering, injustice) make sense.

Also, if we see God as a tribalist, preferring one tribe over others, so that good is whatever is good for the chosen tribe (even if that means death to other tribes).

It's not clear there is any reason why we shouldn't view God as a capitalist businessman or a tribalist.

I was talking about the empathy and compassion that can come form facing adversity together, not hatred and contempt. — Janus

You mean like this?

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

Well, that advice was stupid from the start since it has also always been acknowledged that the vaccines are only about 90% effective.

But not in the popular social narrative. If people who are so enthusiastically in favor of covid vaccination would have really acknowledged what you're stating above, then whence their hatred and contempt for everyone who doesn't fall in line with their enthusiasm?

From that it follows that there can be no guarantee that you are not infectious even if vaccinated. That advice is already changing due to the extreme infectiousness of the Delta variant.

But what isn't changing is the enthusiasm of the pro-vaccers, nor their hatred and their contempt.

As to your road rage example, I haven't said that everyone gets vaccinated on account of altruistic motives, so it's not clear to me what you think you are arguing against there.

The point about altrusitic motives for vaccination was in the context of another discussion with other posters earlier in the thread who are on a crusade against those who aren't all that enthusiastic about covid vaccination. The argument of those crusaders is like the one I quoted in the beginning of this post. "If you don't get vaccinated, you're selfish" is one of their points.

You said earlier: "Nah. I doubt anyone in this whole thing really thinks of others. It's just politically correct to say one is doing it "for others". It makes for such good PR." and now you say
I wasn't generalizing human nature. I'm saying that the people who do as described above (from aggressive drivers to employers who have their employees work in unsafe conditions) often happen to be the same people who are enthusiastically in favor of the covid vaccine.
— baker

Can you not see that you are contradicting yourself and that the first statement is a generalization about human nature?

?
I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with. I do not believe that humans are, by nature, selfish, nor that they are, by nature altruistic. I think they are strategists.

I object to the idea that people get vaccinated out of concern for others; but this doesn't mean I think they get vaccinated out of selfish reasons. Like I said, I do not believe that the selfish-altruistic distinction is meaningful to begin with.

The popular social narrative about covid vaccination would have us believe that we should get vaccinated out of concern for others, and that those who don't get vaccinated are selfish, while those who do are acting altruistically. Yet when you look at so many vaccinated people and so many enthusiastic supporters of covid vaccination, you can see that they are hardly people who can be described as "caring for others". So it's hard to believe that they got vaccinated out of concern for others.

The popular social narrative about covid vaccination is one thing, and people's actual reasons for vaccination are another matter. Yet some people love to hide behind the popular social narrative about covid vaccination. Virtue signalling and white-knighting and whatnot.

If all you're willing or able to do is engage in politically correct watercooler talk, then what on earth are you doing at a philosophy forum??!

However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

See, this is goodness, in every respect:

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

Do as I suggested and we can engage in the merits on anything you want. Until then, your a fascist, racists, inconsiderate, disrespectful, selfish person. — James Riley

This is true goodness. True goodness. True human goodness. The role model of human goodness you are.

In order to speak about "omnibenevolence" ("unlimited, infinite benevolence"), we must first speak about "benevolence", which is "The quality of being well meaning; kindness" (common definition). This is something that makes sense, and it is real for most of us, since we are all human beings, i.e., entities of the same kind. However, when we start talking about God (or a "god"), we are bringing in an entity that is of a totally different kind and about which we know very little (for a lot, even nothing). How can we then know 1) if what we call "benevolence" exists for God and 2) assuming that it does, what would that mean to Him? In short, how can we know what does God consider as "benevolent"? Because only then we could judge whether everything that happens here, on our miniscule planet, created by God, as most people believe, can be considered "benevolent" or is in accordance with a benevolent plan. — Alkis Piskas

No, this is backwards. We start off with a definition of God, and God is, by definition, omnibenevolent. We then proceed to interpret the world in line with that definition.

But we don't have to go that far. Here's a more "earthly" example. Quite often, it is necessary to punish children, always in good will, so that they can really undestand the severity of a mistake they made. However, in doing this, we appear to be "mean" to them. Yet, they usually understand later that we did that in good will and it was a correct decision.

Anything can be justified that way. Anything.


Also, I don't know if there exists a study on this, but I bet that children are punished the most for not respecting certain societal taboos.

Correct. However, "goodness" in the Platonic sense means being good to others and to yourself in every respect. — Apollodorus

This is vague.

Christians can argue that God is always good to people, and that this also means he is good to those who he condemns for eternity. Christians were burning witches "for their own good". The Nazis believed it was for the own good of Jews that they be annihilated.

And so on. There is an endless row of examples from human culture where one person's bad is another person's good.

Hardly any term is as vague as "good".

People need to learn how to integrate philosophy with everyday life. It may not always be easy, but if philosophical reasoning and contemplation result in greater clarity of mind, power of discernment, better understanding of others, greater awareness of environmental issues, etc., then it can't be a bad thing.

By modern standards, what would Plato be, in terms of socioeconomic theory? Probably not a socialist, but a capitalist. Can we be reasonably sure that he wouldn't support Trump? Or Hitler? Remember, in ancient Greece, they practiced selective infanticide; unfit or unwanted babies were removed from society. And that was deemed good.

They are indices of socioeconomic success.
Why should wisdom and socioeconomic success be seen as necessarily mutually exclusive?

I think DK itself is subject to the DK effect and is cheerfully misapplied to many things. — Tom Storm

Too few people discussing DK have read the original study, or at least the Wiki article on it.

The title of the original study was:

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"

and this is the salient point of the DK effect. Lack of competence can lead to inflated self-assessments of one's competence.

That one cannot have expertise in every field is a given. But people differ in how they interpret and handle this lack of competence (in themselves and in others).

Note also that the DK effect is not universal across cultures, but that some cultures (ie. Muricans) are more prone to it than others.


We had a nice example of it a while back when a poster posted a thread about ad hominems, asking questions about it. Some posters suggested some literature on the topic, for the OP's questions are readily addressed in it. But the OP refused to read that literature, and claimed that suggesting that they read that was an ad hominem.

He tries to connect this emotion with "suffering and pain" instead of weakness. — javi2541997

If one suffers and one is in pain, one is weak. How could it be otherwise?

Buddhism isn't viable in this world. If the wiseness of a religion is to be measured by how well its adherents do socioeconomically, then Christianity is certainly wiser.