Such a discussion of power is a way to distract from the actual power issues.
— baker

How so? — Tom Storm

Because they focus on some obvious and egregious point, which then allows many everyday uses of power go completely unnoticed and taboo to discuss.

It's the you-mode of talking that is auhoritarian. I've referred to this many times, many times.
— baker

Like the comments presented by baker when arguing?

You didn't read the link, did you?

Isn't one problem here the notion that there may be a God who is a thug and a bully?

Of course he's a thug and a bully. The question is only which thug and bully we're supposed to devote ourselves to!!

If this is the case, then those hellfire preachers are correct and tough shit, baker, we're all fucked when we die if we didn't worship this thing in the right way. And your inadequate human understandings of power or justice matter not a jot...

And yet some people have figured it out which god is the right one. Don't you want to be one of those people?

But I still maintain that I have encountered preachers who do not appear to peddle authoritarian ideas; their God is ineffable, with no hell or banishment and no single, right way to worship or be a person.

Sure. But reading, for example, Meister Eckhart or Hildegard von Bingen while not having first been baptized and confirmed into a church is like not even having completed elementary school but going to the application office at a university and demanding to be enrolled into a PhD program.

And I'm sure Eckhart and Hildegard are turning in their graves when someone who is not even baptized into the RCC reads their texts.

So where does this leave you? What are your conclusions? — Tom Storm

That we should push the religious/spiritual to sort things out amongst themselves, until only one religion/spirituality is left.

I think many of us have seen all of the above and worse. For several decades now, I've argued that, for the most part, people interested in pursuing religion, spirituality, and higher consciousness are as flawed, careless, and ambitious as any other group of people.

I'm inclined to think that the whole point of religion/spirituality is the pursuit of wealth, health, and power.

Given what you say, where do you think you could find a source of benign, non-authoritarian people who meet your standards?

I'm not looking for "benign, non-authoritarian". If anything, I want people who are straightforward and can be relied on.

As I noted above, you're confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism.

And here's the thing: it seems that for people within the Western metadiscourse paradigm, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are synonymous. They both connote something "vile" and "contrary" to the values ​​of liberalism. — Astorre

Not to me, though. I think liberalism is both authoritarian and totalitarian in its own ways, and even worse, because it adds insult to injury (liberal rights and freedoms exist only on paper).

My issue with religion/spirituality (which, yes, I think are necessarily authoritarian) is that their picture is *not* on the money. That is, I think it would be far better if there would be a state religion, an official religion obligatory to all citizens of a jurisdiction and that the state religion would make sure that every child who is born there is automatically accepted into the religion. (I think "religious freedom" is problematic in so many ways.)

Instead, what is happening, especially in "free" and "democratic" nations is that religions fight for supremacy, all the while insisting on a separation of church and state (which is actually a religious idea and benefits the religions the most), and people who aren't by birth members of any religion are blackmailed by religions from all directions.

I don’t think this is accurate. Isn’t the discourse of power one of the most common topics in Western PC circles? Isn’t that exactly what they’re often satirised for: the Foucauldian obsession with power. — Tom Storm

Such a discussion of power is a way to distract from the actual power issues.

IRC, we've had this conversation before. I went to some lenghts to describe authoritarianism to you, and was surprised that you don't notice it. I assumed that working in the field of mental health, you'd surely had some seminars on the topic, especially on the modes of communication. Alas ...
— baker

This feels more like a personal attack, with a passive-aggressive flourish. “Alas,” really? “You’d surely had some seminars”? I don’t understand why you need to make such snide comments.

It's factual. If you had read any of the links I provided earlier, you'd see.

As I said, I’ve experienced Christian preachers who do not evoke a discourse of power. What you describe isn’t present in any "modes of communication". Your comment, “was surprised you don’t notice it” seems more like a jibe.

It's the you-mode of talking that is auhoritarian. I've referred to this many times, many times.

As long as they teach Christian doctrine, they can't be anything other than authoritarian. Because Christianity is based on an argument from power, it can only be authoritarian.
— baker

Say more about that, since the opposite is the more common argument. And yes, before you say anything, I’m well aware of the history of Christianity. I’m more interested in your idea that there’s no possibility Christianity can be anything but authoritarian.

"You've got to do right by God, and you've got to do it while you're still alive, or you will burn in hell for all eternity."
This is the essence of Christianity. Sure, some people call that "love" -- after all, God is giving you an out even though you deserve to burn just for being born.

Someone like Pope Francis might seem like an all-round nice guy, but he still believed, and preached, eternal damnation for everyone who doesn't live up to the RCC's standards.

And Christian preachers from other Christian denominations preach the same, just in favor of their own respective denomination.

In this thread, the question seems to be: is it ethical to propagate something you don't fully understand or something you believe in without foundation (for example, if you've simply been brainwashed). A "preacher" in this context isn't necessarily an imaginary priest of some church, but anyone who advocates something. — Astorre

People do this all the time. Some do it under the motto "Fake it 'till you make it" or "We learn best by teaching others".

I don't think it's ethical, but it's not like there is a galactic court with which I could file my complaint.


I've been around long enough to have witnessed some very let's call that "vocal" preachers fall away from what they preached. A Buddhist monk who preached in a fire-and-brimstone mode and then a few years later disrobed. Another one who committed suicide. A Christian preacher who eagerly threatend me with eternal damnation, but who, after some back-and-forth, said, "But I'm a seeker just like you".
Then the more secular examples, like Marie Kondo.

Such incidents left me with a bitter taste. Many of these preachers have directed so much hatred and contempt at those they preached to -- and for what?

I'll try to explain what "faith" is in Kierkegaard's understanding, as best I can. — Astorre

I think Kierkegaard is quite useless here. A hopeless romantic. That's not how religious discourse works.

I'm inclined to believe that if we meet Him, we'll certainly recognize Him. — Astorre

But by then it will be too late. Failure to choose the right religion while there was still time results in eternal damnation.

Well, I’m not convinced that you don’t see orange everywhere. But let's not speak in code; my point is you tend to frame most ideas in a negative light, with a focus on what you see as abuses of power. — Tom Storm

That's your projection.

I've always talked about the *uses* of power. But somehow, the Western PC discourse rules out any talk of power, as if any talk about power is talk about the abuse of power. The politically correct vastly underrate (or deny) how much in life is actually about power.

And "negative" is another word used by Pollyannas -- and the poltiically correct -- to denote an absence of the naiveté they so keenly exhibit.

You may not have been going for smug or patronising, but it could be read this way.

So given your response above about seeing "orange" I could use the same device. If I can identify authoritarianism, then presumably I can identify when it isn't there too.

But none of this really matters, right?

IIRC, we've had this conversation before. I went to some lenghts to describe authoritarianism to you, and was surprised that you don't notice it. I assumed that working in the field of mental health, you'd surely had some seminars on the topic, especially on the modes of communication. Alas ...

Do you think it is impossible for a Christian preacher to be non-authoritarian in their approach?

As long as they teach Christian doctrine, they can't be anything other than authoritarian. Because Christianity is based on an argument from power, it can only be authoritarian.
It really doesn't help if the first thing people imagine upon hearing "authoritarian" is Stalin or Mao or Hitler. Authoritarianism is very common, it's the mode in which most people operate every day. Just because they don't go around killing, raping, and pillaging doesn't mean they're not authoritarian.

An authoritarian parent represents a somewhat milder version of this, emphasizing discipline, order

Not necessarily. They can be totally chaotic and still authoritarian.

, and compliance.

Dermanding compliance is key. Seeing oneself as above the other person, as the authority over the other person is what makes one authoritarian. External expressions can very greatly.

Note how preaching to outsiders is not common to all religions; only the expansive religions (such as Christianity and Islam) preach to outsiders. Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, for example, do normally not preach to outsiders.
— baker

This resonates perfectly with Kierkegaard: Faith is a personal act. Faith is silent. — Astorre

??
Not at all.

It's not possible to convert to traditional Judaism or Hinduism; one has to be born into those religions in order to be a member. For them, neither the notion of conversion nor the notion of preaching to outsiders exist.
In Buddhism, conversion is possible, but they preach only to the person who comes kneeling to them begging for instruction.

You subtly distinguish expansive preaching from intra-denominational preaching, and that's a great addition. The idea of ​​the post is to identify the preacher's paradox in an expansive religion/belief. I think this is an excellent clarification. But I'd like to identify the paradox without reference to labels, but to the preaching of faith as such (no matter what it is, even belief in aliens).

I know religious/spiritual people who would comment to you along the lines of, "Why should I pretend not to know when I do know? Just to spare your fragile ego? No, I'm not going to do that!"

And what we actually do is use the word "man" to refer also to transmen. — Michael

Not everyone uses it that way. And since there is in fact no divine dictionary, nothing is set in stone. And so the battle for the meaning of a word is ongoing.

And it's not about how many people use a word to mean something in particular; it's about how powerful those who use it in that way are.

Somebody is doing it wrong. — T Clark

And again the conversation about sex is held mostly by men, on men's terms ...

Preaching is persuasion. It is a public word addressed to others, with the goal of evoking faith in them, that is, persuading them to accept something illogical, unprovable, and inexpressible. — Astorre

This doesn't sound right, not at all.

Note how preaching to outsiders is not common to all religions; only the expansive religions (such as Christianity and Islam) preach to outsiders. Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism, for example, do normally not preach to outsiders.

And when it comes to a religous teacher speaking to his ingroup, to the members of his religion, this is actually just a repetition of already learned material (or material that was supposed to be learned already). Such sermons, and insofar there is any conversation with the members of the congregation, such conversations, follow the Socratic method: the conclusion is known and accepted by all participants at the onset, only the steps to that conclusion are rehearsed. The ingroup doesn't need to yet be persuaded; it goes without saying that they have already accepted the religious tenets, or else they wouldn't be there in the pew at all.

As for preaching to outsiders: I never got the impression that the preacher is trying to "evoke faith" in me, much less trying to convince me to "accept something illogical, unprovable, and inexpressible". Not even remotely. In the best case scenario, I think they were "just doing their job of preaching" and I was entirely irrelevant to it. Iinstead of me, a carboard box might be there, and it would make no difference to them. In the more frequent scenario the preacher expressed his gloating over my eternal demise.

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

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

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

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

Or maybe you see authoritarianism everywhere? — Tom Storm

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

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

Oh? Or maybe you fail to notice their authoritarianism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes to the first and no to the second.

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

What can be offered to such a person?

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

Enough for whom, by whose standards?

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

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

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

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

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

As sketched out above, they are such caricatures.

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

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

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

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

This sounds rather victim-ish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objectification of others appears to be evolutionarily advantageous.
— baker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what is so wrong with atheism? — ProtagoranSocratist

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

Why is that wrong?
— RogueAI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




And shame on you for suggesting I was a racist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practicing ich-du on AI's is cowardly.

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

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

I'd like to know more about this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to repeat my question:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was somewhat skeptical of this skull worship. — Astorre

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

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

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

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

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

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