Oh, the daggers and stings!

Many countries claim freedom of speech and press and yet censor freespeech. — Protagoras

Because the government's freedom of speech trumps your freedom of speech.

So I need a printing press to have free speech?

Yes, or pen and paper, as the case may be.

t's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. — Xtrix

You keep presenting it that way, though, such as here:

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

What I object to is the emphasis. — Xtrix

I think you've read something into my posts that isn't there, though. Perhaps we need to talk more.

If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. — Xtrix

Of course. Much of what goes on nowadays under "caring for the planet" is nonsense, usually intended to get us to buy the advertiser's product or service. It's also dangerous because it can create in people a false sense of accomplishment and contribution -- "Look, I have a cloth shopping bag, I'm protecting the environment!"

I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual.

(I'm in Europe. On national televisions here, there are many documentaries on the theme of skepticism about mainstream approaches to ecology; just last week, there was one titled "The green lie". But most of them are not in English, and not readily available online, so I can't refer to them.)

Anyone with the money to posses a printing press (or other media outlet) has "freedom of the press". And this is also pretty much the extent of the meaning of "freedom of the press".

I'm interested in the phenomenon of resilience. While there is quite a bit of recent research in psychology about resilience, I find it to be too general and too abstract to be useful, and I'm more interested in its metaphysical underpinnings, if there are any. What is it that a resilient person believes about the Universe and their place in it, so as to be able to handle life's hardships resiliently? Is it possible to teach and learn this? If yes, how?

I haven't claimed to figure anything out. I've put forth no meaning of my own. — Kenosha Kid

But you speak with great confidence. This is enough of a clue.

Freespeech is in no way similiar to having a door on your house.
A conversation is not a private house. — Protagoras

Owning a media outlet is similar to owning a house. You don't let just anyone in.

No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. — Xtrix

In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy.

I do believe things start at the individual person, and that if enough people do it, it can become governmental policy and other high-level actions or at least create a socio-economic environment in which those policies make sense and become actionable.

A conscientious use of food and clothing (where it's simply about buying carefully and using thoroughly, I'm not talking about composting and recycling), for example, would force a change in some business policies and processes, simply because of the change to the demand for products. It seems to me that this would be more effective than trying to get big business to change its ways by other means, such as through government incentives for "green" industry.

Do you think restricting speech needs to be justified? — Pinprick

Do you think restricting who can enter your home needs to be justified?

So you refuse to learn?
*sigh*

On the other hand, a foxhole denotes an active war context in which the cortisol response would make the notion of "happy" almost satirical in a neurotypical person. — Cheshire

For centuries, it was expected of soldiers to have courage under fire, hence the phrase.

And in general, cowardice has always been looked down upon. Well, until relatively recently, when it seems that the psychologically "normal" thing to do is to fall apart under pressure, or else be branded as a psychopath.

Sorry, that it's no loss to an atheist/physicalist that we have no teleological meaning. — Kenosha Kid

Of course. But what I see in this is braggartry. When people say or imply in any way that they "have it all figured out", I want to see how they actually hold up against life's hardships, regardless of whether they are theists, atheists, or whatever. I want to take them to Rhodes, to see how they jump there.

I'm doing no such thing. Everyone is free to try to take the conversation in an on-topic direction, although no one is obliged to follow them. I couldn't tempt WF to go my way, but there's nothing stopping you, fill your boots. Since my and WF's conversation died ages ago, the obvious blocker is that you're spending your time talking to me about my conversation instead of having yours. — Kenosha Kid

You're creating a hostile discussion environment that is not conducive to discussing the topics I want to discuss.
At the same time, what the vocal antireligionists are saying are clues for the topics I do want to discuss.
Hm.

One imagines that the theist - for all his inventions of sky daddies and karmic mysteries - has a lack of imagination so severe that he has to invent a whole 'mythos' to cover over their total inability to recognize 'meaning' seeping through every pore of the universe without all that trash. Theism is and will always be simply a hatred of the world, motivated by a deep existential impotence, projected outward as a defense mechanism, and then demanded of everyone else on pain of suffering that same complete failure of imagination as they have. — StreetlightX

For all my dislike of religion in general, I don't believe the above.

If you're a wuss, you'll be a wuss, with or without religion. And religion can certainly make you into even more of a wuss. But it doesn't turn a confident man into a wuss. And it can't help a wuss to stop being a wuss.

I often find myself wanting to have a proper conversation with Wayfarer, but it's impossible because of all the deprecatory interjections from some other posters, and those who insist on keeping the discussion at a superficial level.

My description is limited to the constraints in understanding how different ideas of life's meaning appear to different people. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

I'm hardly painting him as a placard-waving, abortionist-murdering, homophobe who loves his guns

You're blocking the conversation from getting anywhere, it never develops into the directions I want it to go in.

just for pointing out that the only meaning he recognises isn't worth a damn to many of us.

The implication being that ...?

I think they believe that it's impossible to find meaning for yourself and that it must be spoon-fed to us by some robed authority figure. — praxis

This is a strawman.

It's not actually possible to "find meaning for yourself", although it's possible, and fairly common, not to acknowledge one's sources.

Even the most extreme individualist is still a person who has read what other people have written, who has listened to other people, and then incorporated bits of that into his own philosophy. As such, he did not "find meaning for himself". Just like one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of breathable air and food, so one cannot be self-sufficient in terms of one's worldview.

The individualism you speak so highly of is popular in religious and areligious circles alike. The sentence of yours I'm quoting is actually the kind of thing I've heard from religious people as well, when they say things like, "Think for yourself, look into various religions and then objectively, without bias, decide for yourself which one is the right one." This is an action that would require epistemic autonomy, which is impossible!!

Your attitude is not conducive to meaningful communication.

Seriously, I thought you were joking - criticizing my ideas about ad hominem arguments by making ad hominem arguments against me. It would have been a great joke. — T Clark

I wasn't joking, I replied to your OP request. I thought about what resources could be useful for learning about the topic you raised, and I posted some links to them. Have you read them?

I look around society and I see a very unnatural state. For example, I see a drive to force almost against our will different segments of society, different groups, different biologies, different backgrounds, together in a way which, compared to a historical sense, seems very forced, engineered, calculated, planned and ultimately is unnatural in that historical sense. — JohnLocke

Sure, but the class/caste/segregation system is still well and alive, it's just more subtle.

The egalitarianism that is officially pushed on us is illusory, and a well-adjusted person knows this. People still operate out of a class/caste/segregation mentality and are expected to do so, it's just not politically correct to admit to it.

Is this just petty rhetoric? The notion there is a religious alignment that makes people "happy" under life and death circumstances is absurd. — Cheshire

It's not a new idea. The ancient Stoics, for example, set out to be happy and content, regardless of circumstances.

Whereas you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the idea that a meaning derived from a teleological creator isn't worth a damn outside of a creationist framework, that other meanings that are worth a damn in other frameworks are actually the weightier ones in those frameworks. No one's craving a higher purpose from a non-existent entity, it's not that conceptually difficult. — Kenosha Kid

You're not being fair. Wayfarer is a rare religious/spiritual person with whom it is actually possible to communicate. While you're painting him as the standard Southern redneck fundie.

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss.
— Kenosha Kid

That's correct, and I stand by that. — Wayfarer

Like I said before, you're optimistic and idealistic ...

I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. — Xtrix

Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?

We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?

It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources.

Meanwhile: catching fish and releasing them is arguably more brutal but rarely condemned. — IanBlain

Possibly because it is more rarely witnessed.

Bugs are still in many places, but to witness the catching and releasing of fish, one has to go to a suitable body of water, which is, statistically, a rarer occasion.

Jeesus, some people here are just trying to help you, as per your OP request. Not to criticize you.

I’m curious about what prompted you to start this thread, then. Struggling to see a point. — Wayfarer

An areligious person was bragging about the benefits of their areligious stance, and I wonder if such people can still brag like that once life gets hard.

What evidence do you have for that curious claim? — Tom Storm

It's my own experience, and the experience of many seekers who turn to religion when they are facing hard times. Existential despair can be a powerful motivator.

I was an atheist when I was broke (years ago) and had to shelter in phone boxes at night to stay dry. My situation made no difference. You are either convinced of something or not convinced of something.

It's hard to objectively measure hardship and suffering to begin with. One person's rock bottom might be another's "still manageable". But the point is that they both have a notion of "fallen on hard times", even though they differ in what exactly that means in practical terms (for one, it might be living in a one-room apartment, for another, sheltering in phone boxes).

You also made the claim that people lose their religion when life goes bad.

I only said that some people lose their religion when life goes bad, that I have perceived a trend.

So is it the case that you think people's beliefs are held in place by their situation?

For some people, they seem to be. There are many factors to consider.

But he says that philosophy seeks that meaning through understanding, not through mere belief, although that is a distinction I guess won't get any traction here. — Wayfarer

It doesn't get much traction in religious/spiritual settings either.

The point about any kind of philosophical hermenuetic is to try and discern what factor, if anything, they are pointing at, so as to disclose a larger truth.

Indeed, a self-respecting philosophizer shouldn't read philosophy books or converse on philosophy discussion forums simply because he's bored or can't sleep.

That depends on what is at stake. If we're simply material aggregates and death is the end, then nothing is at stake. But if there is a higher purpose, and we don't see it, then we've missed the point. And it's a very important point to miss. — Wayfarer

Only on the condition that there is rebirth/reincarnation.
Any type of "higher meaning" stands and falls with rebirth/reincarnation. If there's no rebirth/reincarnation, then nothing is lost if a person doesn't pursue some "higher meaning".

But overall, the erosion of the sense of meaning, the loss of the sense of mankind having a meaningful place in the Cosmos, has been a major theme in modern culture, expressed in countless works of philosophy, drama, art and literature. — Wayfarer

Of course. I think this loss of meaning goes hand and hand with the increase of material wellbeing, or at least with the enormous emphasis on it that is evident in modern times.

I don't think it's necessary to be religious to live a meaningful life, but as a consequence of my own search, I interpret religious ideas as expressions of mankind's search for meaning or of the relationship of the human and the Cosmos. Ultimately the major religious figures achieve a kind of cosmic identity, in more than simply a symbolic sense.

Acknowledging one's sources is an immediate manner of bringing man's relationship with the Cosmos to one's awareness.

By orientating our understanding in the light of theirs, we are able to realise something similar.

I don't know. I've never had a single experience with religious/spiritual people or their texts that I would consider positive or encouraging. Of course, they're all eager to blame me, but I take this eagerness as a sign that they have nothing to offer, or that I'm simply a lesser being who is simply out of their league and would only waste her time trying to understand them.

My primary reasons for skepticism about religion/spirituality are the low quality of interpersonal communication and their caveat emptor attitude. By being that way, they make themselves irrelevant to me, and I can sustain interest in them only if I myself, too, engage in the sort of character assassination against myself that they enact against me.

I don't know what you mean. Hey, wait a minute!!! Isn't calling me "naive" an ad hominem argument!!! You did this on purpose didn't you?

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
— baker

I don't know what this means either.

Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.
— baker

I'm trying to figure out whether this is an ad hominem argument too. I think it is. Boy. This is fun. — T Clark

I think it would do you good to read some books on critical thinking.

Here's a nice one:

https://books.google.si/books?id=0fVADwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=sl#v=onepage&q&f=false

Your inability to function - much less think - without a mythic crutch does not warrant an arrogation of this impotence to cosmic proportions. Much less make the basis of rendering judgements upon other modes of ethics that do not find their raison d'etre in a dearth of imagination. — StreetlightX

And yet all this self-reliance and self-sufficiency of the areligious individualist is built on the work of so many that came before him, including the religious. He didn't invent himself out of nothing.
Individualists are really just thankless brats, refusing to acknowledge their sources, viewing such acknowledgment as a weakness.

For me atheism is experiencing the radical absence of any transcendent guarantee. It comes with no pangs of dread or emptiness and absurdity makes only an occasional appearance. — Tom Storm

Of course. But atheism is predicated on relative material wellbeing. It's a fairweather friend.

Your not, that's my point. It oughtn't be profound that what's at stake in terms of meaning is only considerable if you already are biased about what that meaning is. From within a particular ideology that makes claims about meaning, those meanings are important. But outside, other meanings are important, or none are important. — Kenosha Kid

Of course.

What's at stake is relative to what you believe.

But this thread is about the proverbial foxholes, those challenging situations that put to the test what one believes and holds dear.

You cannot compare the meaning of life as understood by a creationist to that of a Buddhist, or an atheist, or a simulationist, since the values of each kind of meaning differ from reference frame to reference frame.

Sure, and if a person can firmly hold their peace-time beliefs also once they are in a foxhole, then there's no problem for them.
But what if they can't?

The Buddhist meaning of human life is comparable to the Christian one: both are transcendental, involving ascensions for the ethical and devout, which is unsurprising as both religions concern how the existence of different kinds of afterlife should dictate how we behave in this life. Remove that afterlife and the meaning disappears: the meaning only had value in those religious belief structures. Wayfarer believes this is a loss, and I'm just trying to get him to see that it could only be a loss if you believe in that meaning, in which case nothing is lost. — Kenosha Kid

Of course, but, again, we're talking about the proverbial foxholes.

Since your idea of philosophy is ad hominem, i.e. largely to quote somebody important saying the thing you want others to believe — Kenosha Kid

Does he simply want others to believe it?
Or is that your projection?

The point of my conversation with Wayfarer is that he believes these sorts of meanings, where there is some higher purpose intended and some ultimate goal to aspire to, have values generally, such that to be without such a meaning is a loss. — Kenosha Kid

Actually, I'm not so sure he does believe them, because I think that if he did, he wouldn't be discussing them here, in such a manner. Personally, I think that if I would believe those things, I wouldn't be discussing them at a forum like this.

So that sounds like you think prearranged status runs everything and there's no hope. Why would you still participate? — Tom Storm

Because even hobitses are a pugilistic species, what to speak of humanses!

You started with a speculation, and I added to it. In search of a good idea.
*shrug*

So, the way I view things is that absolute freedom is the default position, and from there any laws, restrictions, etc. need to be justified. I see it the same way in this case. Whichever media outlet starts with absolute freedom of speech, and then needs to justify their reasons for excluding certain types of speech. — Pinprick

Have there ever been any media outlets that started with absolute freedom of speech?

To the best of my knowledge, all media outlets have always been the means for promoting a particular ideology. That they characterize themselves with epithets like "the only news outlet interested in telling the truth" or that they are "defenders of free speech" is just part of their ideology.

Mr. Clark: I'd like to see your med school diploma please. — T Clark

It seems your issue is specifically with appeal to authority (implicitly on your part!), because this same theme keeps coming up in your posts.

As I've said, because the forum is informal and lots of stuff gets discussed here, many of the questions hinge on questions of fact. When that happens, a persons qualifications, experience, or education may be relevant. Example - people keep claiming that Einstein was wrong about the speed of light because the big bang happened 14 billion years ago but the universe is 45 light years across. I've read explanations of why this is, and I sort of understand them, but it still bothers me. If, in response to one of these claims, I say "I don't really understand all of this, but I don't think you do either, so, I'll stick with Einstein." That is an ad hominem argument which I think is appropriate. — T Clark

I don't know how to say this nicely, but you sound a bit ... naive. A bit like a kid in a candy store who can't decide what to choose.

That's the main question I'm trying to get at - when is it reasonable to raise questions about something personal about someone as an argument. — T Clark

It's rather that you don't raise enough questions about yourself and about why you're reading ro discussing something.
Part of thinking critically is determining your own intentions and your own reasons for reading something or engaging in discussion about it. But given what you say above, you seem like someone who has a chaotic, unsystematic approach to reading and discussing. No amount of other people proving their credentials, or you proving their lack of those can make up for your own lack of clarity about what you want to get out of a conversation.

What's the difference between saying that someone is not worth listening to, and saying that their arguments are vacuous, and thus refuted? — Janus

Do you mean invalid or unsound, or in fact vacuous?

If the latter, then your pair above means roughly the same.

But the ad hominem fallacy is usually committed in contexts where there is no definable of certifiable expertise, or at least not the kind of expertise which guarantees or at least produces tendencies towards consensus of opinion. — Janus

In the above example with the doctor, the patient would commit an ad hominem fallacy (specifically, a fallacious argument from authority), if he concluded that any advice given by the doctor is good and should be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem, on account that docotrs must be unquestioningly trusted and their advice followed.


Here's a real example:
A couple of years back in Slovenia, a case became public where a child was born with a rare foot deformity, and a doctor apparently advised the parents to amputate the foot. They were upset and turned to the media and the public for help. Gradually, it became known that there exist specialists for this type of deformity, just not in Slovenia and that health insurance doesn't cover the treatment. It's one of those rare medical conditions for which one has to seek treatment in a bigger country.

What we don't know is how the initial conversation between the parents and the doctor went. We don't know whether he said something like
"Amputation is the only option"
or
"In this country, with your medical insurance, amputation is the only option".

Given how callous and legalistic some doctors can be, the former is possible. In this case, if the parents went with the doctor's advice and had the child's foot amputated, they would be commiting a fallacious argument from authority (for concluding that a doctor's advice must be followed, regardless of how absurd it may seem). But if he said that, and they sought a second opinion and other help, they wouldn't commit such a fallacy.

If, however, the doctor qualified his statement, implying that treatment is available, just not in this country and with this medical insurance, that would change the whole situation.

Hot-cold, Good-bad, Tall-short, Big-small, male-female, up-down, left-right, but more importantly, something you for certain will understand: is (p) and is not (~p). — TheMadFool

But there are also at least such triplets:
hot - lukewarm - cold
good - neutral - bad
big - medium - small
male- hermaphrodite - female
up - middle- down
left - center - right
etc.
and quadruplets:
South - North - East - West

It's not that thinking in opposite pairs is a given, or somehow inherent. We formulate groups of competing concepts depending on our needs. For example, to orient ourselves geographically, we need at least 4 determinants.

It may be valid, but the truth of it a different matter.
— tim wood

I can live with that. — TheMadFool

No, you shouldn't.

All pigs can fly.
Aristotle is a pig.
Aristotle can fly.

Valid, but not sound.

No, I was discussing an epistemological issue.