I'm still unclear on this. Are the different ways of meaning simply different attitudes by the speakers of different languages toward the words/meanings of their respective languages? Or a different attitude towards the signified objects? Or something else? — Luke

This is best illustrated by and explained with examples, but for this, all the participants need to be fluent enough in the languages compared. It's a phenomenon that multilingual people can easily understand, but otherwise, it's tedious to explain.

But why boycott a particular country?
Why not focus on self-sufficiency?

Boycotting a particular country is like running away from danger, but not necessarily running to safety.
What we want is safety, so we should run toward safety, not merely away from danger. Self-sufficiency seems like the best practice for attaining (as much) safety (as possible).

I'm so glad you are obedient. I would hate to think you had ideas of your own. — Tom Storm

Nonsense. One of the most important things to know in life is to know one's place. It's amazing how much trouble one avoids that way. There's just no use in forcing oneself upon a culture or social group that doesn't want one.

You seem to be operating under the notion that people who beieve in God have arrived at belief in God or at claims about God via an abstract logical reasoning (or even by empirical investigation), in a bottom-up manner, so to speak.

But this isn't how actual religious theists operate. They operate from the assumption of divine revelation, ie. top-down.

For theists, God reveals himself; it's not the case that man would discover God on his own, without God's revelation.

It doesn't matter whether you believe any of this; but it is a matter of valid reasoning about God. Otherwise, you're just busying yourself with the god of philosophers, a fiction.

The thread is here because I have the gut feeling that there must be something wrong with the argument in the OP; it's just too obvious. But I don't see what the eror is. — Banno

The error is that you invented the argument in the OP. It's not part of any existing theistic religion.

Why is it a true statement?
— Daniel
Because I say. — Banno

There you go. Your say-so doesn't make a statement true.

No, I'm saying nothing can be reasonably said about god. — Banno

Of course it can, provided one doesn't just invent things about God.

1. I want to love my enemy. So far, no joy. I have made some headway, but there's a long way to go.
2. I want my opinion to leave me the fuck alone. I'm better. I find it is no longer my master.
3. I want to not want. Let's see how I can do with that. LOL! — James Riley

A crash course in Buddhism usually quickly results in a crash.

I would say I didn't start getting productive till I was 40 — Tom Storm

Absolutely. I hope the trend continues for me. I can tell that I don't have as much sheer physical strength as I used to (e.g. I can't lift as much as I used to or run as fast), but I have more endurance and it now feels natural to approach large projects little by little and complete them.

There's a reason why marathon runners are typically older than 100 meter sprinters.

Statistics bears it out. Educated, wealthy people are more likely to be atheists. — frank

Sure. But I would like to see longitudinal and developmental studies of this phenomenon.

It seems to me that when people start out poor and religious, they sometimes end up well-off and atheist. In some cases, religion is vital for propelling people forward, but once a measure of material wealth and wellbeing is achieved, religion takes a backseat.

Are educated, wealthy people more likely to be atheists because they are educated and wealthy; or are they educated and wealthy because they are atheists?

↪baker I missed (E)...? — Banno

Here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/562253

If god supports Trump, I'm joining the rebellion.

I mean seriously. How do you explain that some apparently very bad people have it so good in life????

But we might add, if it is so pointless, why are you both here? There are plenty of folk who agree with you, and hence do not post here.

Is it inconsistency, or incontinence? — Banno

Processing of old traumas, efforts to gain a pychological distance from religion (via controlled exposure and desensitization).

Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.

Ought we do as he says? — Banno

Irrelevant example, a fictional scenario, because the moral decision depends entirely on the situation being real, factual.

It's not possible to make meaningful moral decisions in fictional scenarios. (Although fictional scenarios are conducive to playing out one's fantasies.) Moral decisions require that there exist actual options to act on, in the real world. Fictional scenarios don't provide those.

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief) — Banno

Next to the aforementioned E option, I can think of another one:

F) arriving at the belief that if God exist, God is [insert set of particular characteristics].


I believe that if God exists, God is a Trumpista (and everything that comes with that).
How else do we explain that a certain person has just so much luck, so much is going his way, he always comes out on top? At some point, divine protection seems like the only plausible explanation left.

Many Christians, for instance, maintain that God is maximally powerful but he cannot do the logically incomprehensible. God cannot make bachelors married men, for example. — Tom Storm

Yes, he can. To wit: Jesus, the eternal bachelor, to whom so many Catholic nuns are married.

Two parallels intersect in infinity ....

Do you think that there is no such thing as bad art? — Pfhorrest

It's not my place to think such things, as I am not a member of the elite who decides about such things.

Before you seemed to be saying that only the art elite is capable of making such distinctions when you wrote, "Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not." Now you're saying that any school child (provided they're schooled in Europe) knows the difference.

Can you resolve this apparent contradition? — praxis

Certainly. At least up until some 30 years ago, children were typically taught to distinguish between proper art and that which is not proper art. This knowledge, however, has to go hand in hand with knowing one's place in society, and knowing whether one is in the position to speak on a topic or not.

Hm. I guess this is hard to explain to an egalitarian/democrat. I'll put it this way: If you belong to the (lower) middle class and lower, it is, by old European standards, inappropriate for you to go to a classical music concert. Such art is simply considered to be out of your league and you're just not appropriate for it. It's completely irrelevant how much you might like it or how much you might know about it. You must know your place. If a member of the elite has a particularly charitable day, they might tell you that your time would be better spent in other pursuits, otherwise, they'll just frown upon you.

For Benjamin, the differences between languages are, at base, differences between how words mean. That is, what any one expression means can remain identical between languages, but what differs between them is 'how' a particular language goes about "meaning" (taken as a verb).
— StreetlightX

I'm not sure if I agree with this. — T Clark

This is probably most evident in idioms, as it is often misleading to translate them word-for-word.

For example the English idiom bread and butter ('a person's livelihood or main source of income'; or
used in reference to something everyday or ordinary) doesn't automatically translate into the German Brot und Butter, for German has no such idiom with this meaning.

Further example (please add your own):

Greek aletheia: the opposite of lethe 'oblivion', where in English, we would say truth, factuality, reality. For the Greeks, when they spoke of truth, reality, they thought of it in terms of absence of oblivion, while in English, there is no such connotation.

And this is supposed to be a consolation?! A handful of yuppies making a wee bit less money than another bunch of yuppies??!

The possible range of beliefs are:

A) one believes that god exists, or
B) one believes god does not exist, (disbelief);or
C) one, after due consideration, chooses not to commit to believing in god, nor to commit to disbelieving in god or
D) one has not formed an opinion because one has not considered the issue (lack of belief)

Position A is (amongst other things), theism. B is atheism. C is agnosticism, and D pig ignorance, which for the remainder of this post, I’ll ignore. — Banno

You need to add E:

E) after considering the issue, one finds it impossible to form an opinion (in effect, this is lack of belief; the very act of considering the issue has rendered it undecidable, moot).

This is a possible natural, organic consequence of having thought and read and discussed about the issue a lot, from different perspectives.

If you see the opposite, that people are disenfranchised and losing hope, losing their health insurance and job security
you
are
losing. — frank

Surely that is their own fault, not atheism's.

If you're an atheist and you're doing well in life, you've got atheism to thank for that, right?
And if you're an atheist and you're not doing so well in life, you've got only yourself to blame for that (or your mental illness), correct?

but surely incorrigibility isn't a virtue. — jorndoe

Sure it can be, esp. when framed as self-confidence and constancy.

Right. So indoctrination works. (y) And, taken as a methodology, indoctrination doesn't differentiate the target faiths, any will do, and it works just the same. — jorndoe

It's not simply indoctrination.
Like I said elsewhere:

Most religious people were born and raised into their religion, they didn't choose (in the sense of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices"). They do have reasons for their religiosity, but those reasons amount to "I trust what my parents told me on the topic of God (religion), because it makes sense to trust the people who feed me, clothe me, clean me, keep me warm and safe." Of course, they are not likely to ever say that, as framing their religious choice in such banal, down-to-earth terms would take away its power.

The problem in the theism-atheism debate is that both sides assume about themselves and about eachother that their respective positions have been arrived at by a process of "coming to a conclusion after careful study of religious scriptures and practices". But neither has done that. What is more, the cradle atheist has no comparable experience of what that is like, to be told religious claims by one's parents (or other caretakers). The cradle atheist has no sense of the cognitive impact of learning religious teachings from a trusted person at an age before one's faculties of critical thinking have developed. While the cradle theist has no sense what it is like to be without such learning.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097 — https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/552097

In Buddhism on the contrary, they're regarded as strengths — Ross Campbell

Reference?

But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical. — Banno

Duh. Of course. You must bear in mind that theists typically believe that atheists are stupid and that they should be convinced by the proselytizing arguments put forward by the theists. (Imagine yourself being patronizingly patted on the top of your head everytime a proselytizing theist puts forward an argument in favor of God. Of course, that same theist did not arrive at his belief in God by considering the arguments he wants you to consider!)

And -- "in praise of atheism"?? Are you preaching to the choir? Are you arguing that atheism is evolutionarily advantageous, more conducive to survival and happiness? You'd need to show that the poor God believers are kept poor by their God belief.

I disagree completely. It could even just be pinned to their mother’s refrigerator and it would still be art. That says nothing, however, above the quality of it as art, whether it is good art, good at doing what art is to do. Even if it fails miserably at doing what art should do, it’s still art; it’s just bad art. — Pfhorrest

You're an American, aren't you? If you were raised in Europe, you'd learn early on to distinguish between art and mere craft (and kitsch).

Arguments for the existence of god — Banno

Epic fail at the onset.

People who believe in God typically don't do so on the grunds of some philosophical arguments. Instead, they were born and raised to believe in God, and everything else follows from there.

Only the relatively few philosophers who profess to believe in God do so on the grounds of some philosophical arguments. However, these philosopher-theists do not believe in the same God as the religious theists do; philosopher-theists believe in a God of their own making, on their own terms -- they believe in the God of philosophers. For all practical intents and purposes, philosopher-theists should not be counted as proper theists; because from the regular monotheistic perspective, they are still atheists.

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

I expect that what people say should be logical. Silly me.
By now, I know better than to point it out to them (heaven forbid pointing out a logical fallacy!). It just makes for such tedious communication ...

Person: "If you agree with a part of the contract, you must agree with the whole contract."
Baker: *sigh* *silence*

Although the way I would phrase more or less the same idea is that “framing” something makes it art: presenting it to an audience for their consideration, making it the content of a communicative act. It’s not so much it being in any particular place that makes it art, except inasmuch as being somewhere indicates that it is being used as art, and it’s being used as art that makes something art, just like being used as a chair makes something a chair. — Pfhorrest

Provided it's used by the right people, the ones who are in the position to determine whether something is art or not, and whether it's good art or not.

You could frame a painting done by a naive artist, put it into a fancy gallery, and it still wouldn't be art proper.

You sound bitter. — Tom Storm

*hrmph*

I won't ask who you are thinking of. I'll bet you there's self loathing, poor interpersonal relationships, loneliness and substance abuse, just for starters. There almost always is.

Not at all, not in the ones I'm thinking of.
For the older ones, their religiosity probably plays a major part.
The younger ones (now in their 20's, 30's) were raised to "believe in themselves", to "follow their dreams".

Read again what I said.

They damage those around them, ↪baker. — Banno

So what? They get away with it! And society at large loves them, at least secretly!

People admire aggressive drivers, for example. And generally, people blame the victim or at least the one who is worse off. People love winners.

I don't think something like justification applies to circumstances with such complex origins. I think the word applies to actions or beliefs so making such a state of affairs would not be justified, but the existence of the state of affairs is not the sort of thing that the word 'justified' meaningfully applies to.

I'd rather minimise such disparities. — Isaac

People generally believe in the just-world hypothesis, and there is evidence suggesting that such belief correlates positively with mental health.

By this hypothesis, disparities exist among people simply because the people with less income, lower education, lower socio-economic status aren't trying hard enough. In this view, solely the less successful person is to blame, and there's nothing that other people can or should do about it.

Also, it seems that most people believe that disparity is normal, a given, and not something to take any action against.


It's not clear what the motivation for reducing disparity is or should be. Do you have any ideas?

Laughable if it wasn't so sad that people really think like this.
/.../
Yeah, another kid who thinks he has it all figured out because he's discovered some Ayn Rand or Thomas Sowell — Xtrix

Some people really are able to think and live in cutthroat terms, though. They don't have humanist sensitivities. For them, it's perfectly normal that species, including humans become extinct -- nothing to make a fuss about. They can be quite careless about their own death as well.

I am not a theorist or have a vision. — Tom Storm

If you don't know what you want or where you want to go, then how can you do anything?

But various approaches predominate at different times. — Tom Storm

Various approaches? Then how can anything be accomplished?

Who says they are happy? — Tom Storm

I'd prefer to give real examples, but it's not suitable in this case.

Why what? — Tom Storm

Why is psychopathy classified under mental illness, when it helps people to be successful in their careers and life in general?

Who says they are happy?

Oh, come on. Just look at that smug satisfaction! That self-confident contempt! If that isn't happiness (for adults), then what is??!

If they can't defeat others, sure, then they might feel something like unhappiness (or is it righteous indignation after all?). But is it then psychotherapy's goal to help them to defeat others, so that the psychopath can feel happy?

Psychopathy is more often known these days as antisocial personality disorder, I am fairly certain that people only present like this if they have experienced abuse of some kind. It's a post trauma state. — Tom Storm

But why? If they are successful in their career and happy, how can this possibly be classified as ill mental health?

Do you think there'd still be such a need to facilitate social change if we actually addressed disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth? — Isaac

Do you believe that such disparities are not justified?

That's true. Also genuine change in these areas requires hard work and $ and not just symbols. — Tom Storm

But change toward what? What do you imagine as the goal of all this hard work? What is your vision of a just society?

I would have thought in numbers too numerous to count. Many uneducated working people who have been victims of structural changes to the economy and manufacturing, who now don't have jobs and whose towns are dying and who are being asked by the cultural Left (people they see as urban elites) to hold certain views on society and identity politics. Many of them have left Labor style politics precisely because they feel disenfranchised by what they see as stifling political correctness. As one such person said to me a couple of weeks ago, "We need jobs and housing, not gender neutral pronouns." — Tom Storm

When you said "people who would oppose a progressive cause" I thought only of conservatives of the right-wing variety. And they are certainly not disenfranchized.

Also, in Europe, political correctness is a thing of the right-wingers, not lefties.

So the question remains; how best to facilitate cultural change, whilst recognising the disparities in education, resources, opportunity and wealth.

But why would such change need to be facilitated? Seriously, can you explain?

One the one hand, we are force-fed the theory of evolution, and with it, the ideas that life is a struggle for survival and that only the fittest survive. But on the other hand, we're supposed to make numerous exceptions to it?!

Under democracy, there are multiple, competing ideas of what counts as "just" or "good". Under democracy, the problem can never be solved.

I could not follow the argument much further. — NOS4A2

You don't even follow it to the right person.