But the question remains, what do you when the "enemy" gives you no other option? — Apollodorus

By that time, it's too late anyway. That's why it's so important to live in such a way that you either don't make enemies at all, or you become so big and powerful that nobody dares to mess with you.

I for one, tend to believe that humans should try and evolve and leave well behind them the stage of violence as a "solution" to problems. — Apollodorus

This is not a realistic possibility, because natural resources are scarce, and as such, need to be fought for, in one way or another.

On topic, I'd never really considered the fact that the whole notion of 'no atheists in foxholes' is a comment less about atheists than it is about religion - the fact that religion is what one turns to when one is in a desperate, base situation of immanent death. — StreetlightX

But is this really a fact?
Do you know of any study that shows that in the face of grave danger or hardship, (previously non-religious) people tend to turn to religion, and, more importantly, find solace in it?

I suppose that in the face of grave danger or hardship, many people probably do consider religion, but I doubt many find solace in it, or only for a relatively short time.

(For example, a Hare Krishna insider told me that by their informal estimate, 80% of newly joined people leave within their first five years in the religion.)

As far as life being an absurdity without religion, I find the opposite to the case - that religion appeals to the fascist in all of us, who wants to be told what to do by way of some prior cosmic ordering. It is a trembling before freedom, rooted in fear, expressed in the arrogation of tribal campfire stories to cosmic proportion. — StreetlightX

I don't see religion that way at all. I grew in a monoreligious monoculture. From what I've seen, religious people don't care about the religious teachings at all; it's all just for show and keeping up appearances, apparently for the purpose of playing power games and maintaining social order. These people live artfully crafted double lives: with an official, public face, and a private one that is quite unaffected by the public one. Those who end up troubled and traumatized are the ones who weren't able to build and maintain this dichotomy.

I suppose things are different for religious people who live as religious minorities, or in religiously diverse cultures.

EDIT: I seem to be largely defending religion atm. I have no explanation for that. — Kenosha Kid

We're at a philosophy forum, where critical thinking shall reign supreme!

Empirically proving what a particular war was (actually) about is virtually impossible. So as much as one might dislike religion, there are things one cannot say about it without thereby losing one's self-respect as a lover of wisdom.

When I got home a friend asked if I'm religious now. I replied sincerely: fuck off. — Christoffer

Not that I wished this upon you, but it would be more relevant for the OP topic to see your reaction and your attitude toward life if the accident would leave you permanently and severely disabled. If you could still be so cheerfully saying that life is meanigless.

Okay then. X is not given to us by a creator. We are not born with X. Does it follow that X is, at best, an illusion? — Kenosha Kid

Not if the creator has a thing for tormenting some of his children. Why on earth should the creator abide by the motto of the French revolution?!

I would add that philosophically, I find atheism barren, because the implications are that life is an absurdity - a thought Camus was very familiar with. — Wayfarer

My issue with atheism is that it's a fairweather friend. Atheism, and along with it, hedonism, nihilism, pessimism are all fine and well -- as long as health and wealth last. But they are not conducive to living a productive life, and they are especially not conducive to rebuilding one's life once health and wealth are lost.

What is important about religion is finding the source of what Christians call agapé, unconditional compassion, and what Buddhists call bodhicitta

Why do you think this is important?

Yes, they mean something by there words, but that does not mean that there must be some actual object that corresponds to the words. — Fooloso4

Not my problem. I only go where the syllogism takes me.

You've lost track of the argument:

No, you keep mixing discourses, mixing the argument prodived by religion with the one provided by you.

First, whether or not the second premise is true or false it is a syllogism, and thus demonstrates that God's justice cannot be concluded syllogistically.

God is defined as just to begin with. I'm not going to argue with definitions, for crying out loud.

Second, if the second premise is false then you are denying that there is injustice in the world. Now, you say:

Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do.
— baker

So, the second premise is not false after all.

And what did I say after that? I sed:

Do monotheists think there is injustice in the world? They can't, unless they run into some inconsistency with their definition of "God", or it turns out they worship a demigod. — baker

It's one thing to make arguments about religion from the perspective of said religion,
and quite another from one's own personal perspective.

The latter is irrelevant to the validity of the religious argument. Its soundness is another matter (and mostly moot, as far as religious claims go.)

But the meaninglessness of the game may be the very meaning that you are searching for. A Dadaesque rejection of reason and logic for irrationality and intuition, a Continental rather than analytic approach.

As Duchamp wrote: "All this twaddle, the existence of God, atheism, determinism, liberation, societies, death, etc., are pieces of a chess game called language, and they are amusing only if one does not preoccupy oneself with 'winning or losing this game of chess.” — RussellA

And, of course, he was sipping latte in the shade of his villa while he penned those thoughts, eh.

If like the original poster you're making the claim that being well-adjusted to society isn't better for your healthy than being maladjusted, then it's up to you to elucidate this strange theory of yours by which getting on the bad side of society is somehow going to make you healthier. — Paul

It's not my "theory", duh. Jesus. This is a philosophy forum, we shouldn't have to put up with misrepresentation like that.

I'm defining health as a matter of... health. Living longer, having fewer diseases, being happier, not being in the dungeon getting flogged. — Paul

The point is that there are societies where the above is systemically impossible for some, or even many people, by no fault of their own. No matter how much they conform, they still end up living poor, short, miserable lives. This is what happens in a tyranny, a dictatorship, or a caste society for example.

The idea that if one conforms, one will be safe and well, is infantile, even in a democracy.
Conformity can help, but it is no guarantee.

Secondly, considering your above definition of health: Think what it means to be well-adapted to a society where eating lots of junkfood is the norm, for example. This hardly leads to "living longer, having fewer diseases, being happier". Although it might save one from being flogged in a dungeon ...

But I don't understand the closet hippies comment. — Manuel

Our ideas of normalcy were formed by idealists living in times of relative stability and abundance. As such, they are misplaced, anachronistic, counterproductive.

So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.
— Xtrix

Awesome — frank

But how could that help??

If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?

One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable.

I don't understand how someone cannot see these obvious inconsistencies. Lack of critical ability, lack of insight or simple self-deception? — Banno

The same thing happened on the Euthyphro thread. I think it has something to do with an existential vested interest. I am sure that if you are wrong you'll be able to cope, but if they are wrong ... — Fooloso4

And if the two of you want to make ad personams, then at least have the decency to consider _all_ of what I say on a topic, instead of just selecting out a few sentences and ridiculing them, beating your chests like gorillaz.

Christian theologians have been arguing about the definition of God for centuries. Some think that it is a mistake to attempt to define what is beyond human comprehension, that any definition is false. — Fooloso4

Well, since they're using words, I assume they mean something by those words, and that they aren't just glossolaling or blowing hot air.
(They should really give me credit for assuming that they're making sense!)

The issue was whether there is injustice in the world. That question is not about religion. — Fooloso4

No. The syllogism from which this originated was about God:

A just God would not allow injustice in the world
There is injustice in the world
Therefore God is not just — Fooloso4

You keep switching the goalposts, mixing two discourses.

Do I personally think there is injustice in the world? Of course I do.

Do monotheists think there is injustice in the world? They can't, unless they run into some inconsistency with their definition of "God", or it turns out they worship a demigod.

The syllogism in question was about religion.

Everyone needs to make up their own mind — FreeEmotion

Do we really?

It's not clear that there is a need to do so.

a history of being exploited by colonialists
— baker

So which is it, a history of being exploited or there is not injustice in the world? Or do you think the exploitation is just? — Fooloso4

I'm saying that material success depends on a great number of factors, many of which are systemic and outside of an individual's control (e.g. climate, natural resources, history of colonial exploitation). Saying that religion makes people poor, and then providing an example of some banana republic with high God belief is too simplistic. Instead, we'd need to look into the natural givens of a particular country, its historical development, and so on. It's not that God belief is making the people in some banana republic poor; it's more likely that they're poor because of centuries of colonial exploitation, or because they live in a climate that isn't conducive to intense agriculture, and so on.


Your contempt for religion is clouding your ability to think critically.

The second premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow.
— baker
There is a whole lot of evidence to the contrary. — Fooloso4

No, you're just measuring everything by your own human standards (instead of by God's) -- that's why you see injustice in the world.

Well, if you want to take that as a matter of faith, then okay, but you can't at the same time make an appeal to logic. It does not follow logically from a definition that something is as defined.

Of course not. But if you're going to talk about God, you need to stick to the definitions actually provided by actual monotheistic religions, otherwise you're just making shit up.

Neat. I don't understand how someone cannot see these obvious inconsistencies. Lack of critical ability, lack of insight or simple self-deception? — Banno

And I don't understand why some are so eager to make up their own definitions of "God". Lack of critical ability, lack of insight, or simple self-deception? Or maybe an agenda!

Keep in mind that it's in 'merica, which is far more religious than other wealthy countries. — Banno

A longitudinal study is relevant because it studies the development of a particular population over a long period of time. A study of development gives more insight than just a static cut through a population at a specific time.

But I'm generally skeptical of studies of religiosity, because the criteria by which religiosity is measured are superficial and not unified.

The results suport the contention that education results in the rejection of religious belief and practice. — Banno

Sure. What I'm interested in is what drives people to education and the pursuit of material wellbeing to begin with. I think religion plays an important role in this. Religion is what gives many people ambition for material pursuits. But once a measure of material wellbeing is achieved, religion tends to take a backseat. A longitudinal study would show this.

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

Yes. And you make me laugh. — Tom Storm

Are you willing to die for others?
— baker

I am. It's an old school thing. — James Riley

So, have you wirtten your last will and testament and had it properly legalized? Have you gotten all your affairs in order and cleaned out your house?

That doesn't matter now, does it? If you get side effects because of that super unlucky lottery, then that is not any empirical evidence that the vaccine is worse than covid. Is this how you treat logic? That if something happens to you, then the statistics are wrong? Seriously? — Christoffer

Are you a zombie or something??! is there nobody home there??

I'm not saying that if something happens to me, then the statistics are wrong. Oh god. I'm talking about the way a person handles or is supposed to handle the possibility of experiencing negative side effects of medical treatments.

Here, I started a thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11268/trust-in-medicine-despite-potential-or-experienced-harm-malpractice-or-betrayal

The emphasis in the Euthyphro is on being of service to the divine.

According to Plato, the inner self is divine.

The goal of philosophy is to make the soul godlike. — Apollodorus

Of course, such things are consistent with their pantheism.

But what I'm saying is that some of your formulations (e.g. "On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence", "In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self") sound more like narcissistic self-aggrandizement rather than pantheism.

But Euthyphro is not defending social norms. One of the ironies of the dialogue is that Euthyphro's acting on what he is convinced he knows regarding what the gods want is destructive of social norms. Prosecuting your own father is contrary to social norms. — Fooloso4

This is what I said in the rest of the post you quoted:

Are such characters wise? They defend social norms, the status quo, the taboos, and as such, they ensure for themselves a measure of safety and wellbeing. So in that sense, they are wise. But on the other hand, social norms do not form a consistent, non-contradictory system, so anybody defending those norms is bound to run into a problem eventually, a problem that cannot be navigated without incurring damage to oneself or others. — baker

Furthermore, do we really want to see the views we disagree with fester? No - the solution is more constructive or corrective speech. Wherever there are Nazi marches there should be counter protestors. — ToothyMaw

That's awfully impractical, at the very least. To have one's time and efforts commanded by other people like that??!


"Freedom of speech" is a dud anyway. We have free speech, there is no demon or angel on our shoulders making us say or withold this or that. What we don't have is freedom from the consequences of what we say. And there are always at least informal consequences. When people don't like what you have to say, they will retaliate in one way or another, whether by firing you from your job or by spreading mean gossip about you that can destroy your reputation. Either way, you'll suffer the consequences of what you're saying and other people not liking it.

As if "being aggravating" were an objective, inherent characteristic of a person, and have nothing to do with the way two people interact with one another?
— baker

Did I say anything about that? — Sir2u

I infer that this is what you're saying. Esp. when you put it like that:

But to be truthful, when "some" People find another person aggravating it is because of some trait or characteristic they have that is the cause. It would be logical to suppose that other would find that person to be aggravating for the same reason.

Most people do not have "being aggravating" as an objective but it is usually a inherent part of then.

Do you think that if Tom thinks Dick is aggravating, this has nothing in any way to do with Tom?

And that Tom is completey helpless in the face of Dick's aggravation? Ie. that if Tom is in Dick's presence, Tom will become aggravated, and there's nothing Tom can do about that?

Eh? Sarcasm travels poorly online.

You're the one defining health as a matter of conformity to and complaceny with whatever standard happens to seem to prevail at any given time in any given location.

Go zombies!

But then we're in a Mad Max territory. — Manuel

In their minds, many people already seem to be firmly in Mad Max territory anyway. They have a "survival of the fittest" and "life is a struggle for survival" mentality already, even when externally they seem like relatively peaceful members of the (upper) middle class or those aspiring to be so. It's why threats of the negative consequences of global warming, pollution, depletion of natural resources have no effect on them: it's the default they live in in their minds anyway. By pointing those out to them, you're not telling them anything new. If they seem like they don't care or like they're in denial, that has to do only with how they handle that particular conversation with you, but it doesn't accurately reflect their state of mind.

Rather, the actual problem is that psychology and our official notions of normalcy have been written by closet hippies.

I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.
— DingoJones

I think so too. But short of legalizing it all and then putting it in everyone's water, I don't know how long it'd take for enough people to do it, and what the results will be. — Xtrix

Talk about yet another form of authoritarianism! Mandatory drugging!

I think people generally don't fear death, but they fear living a meaningless life, and they fear that their options for making life meaningful will some day run out.

so a believer that is poor and sick still has purpose? — Iris0

I don't know. Do they?

You are kidding, right?

Socrates says:
“Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise”, etc. (Thaetetus 176a – b). — Apollodorus

But you said earlier:

In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self.
— Apollodorus
On a personal level, piety is beinggood to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence, by recognizing its divine identity and acting according to what is good for the self (nous) in Platonic terms.
— Apollodorus — baker

This emphasis on oneself I don't see in the passage you quote above.

You are kidding, right?

Socrates says:
“Therefore we ought to try to escape from earth to the dwelling of the gods as quickly as we can; and to escape is to become like God, so far as this is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous and holy and wise”, etc. (Thaetetus 176a – b). — Apollodorus

Did they believe such things about women as well?

I dare every wannabe stoic to be happy and content even when poor and sick.

why would humans end up in the gutter just because their lives are meaningless and they fill them with what they know and want? — Iris0

No, I'm saying I want to see if the other poster can still be so calm and confident even when he is in the gutter.

People sometimes brag that they can handle the meaniglessness of life and that they don't need crutches like religion. Sure, as long as their health and wealth are still relatively intact, that long it's fun to be a nihilist. But what happens to those people when, for one reason or another, they lose that health and wealth?

Of course some people propose to have such evidence, it's their reason for being atheists. E.g. "If God existed, I wouldn't lose my job/my partner wouldn't get cancer/the Nazis wouldn't kill Jews."
— baker

Not logically. One could say something like, 'There is no perfect, omnipotent God who would not allow a Holocaust." — Kenosha Kid

Enter the difference between God and demigods.

By definition, anything that happens has, obviously, been allowed for by God (for whatever reasons perhaps only known to him). This is why God is mostly an entirely useless concept with next to no explanatory power.

A demigod, ie. a very powerful entity, on the other hand, is a much more useful concept. For demigods take sides, give, take, condemn, punish; demigods do what humans normally do, but with much more power and resources.

I guess that when most people claim to believe in God, they're actually professing belief in a demigod.

When people bemoan the lack of justice or wellbeing in the world and how such is proof that God doesn't exist, or doesn't care, or is powerless, or is a psychopath, they are actually talking about a demigod.

You mention Darwin and how he lost his faith in God. This is a good example of someone losing faith in a demigod (whom he previously mistook for God).

I can look up at the night sky, understand that all of it is pointless, that it's just physics and chemistry producing all of what I see, and I can still be in awe, without having to bullshit any of it and apply delusions upon it in order to feel a sense of meaning. — Christoffer

See you in the gutter, we'll see if then you can still be so smugly satisfied with pointlessness.

So, I want to boycott China because of Hong Kong and the Uighurs, and I've been working towards that for quite some time now. Some things I've noticed.

One, boycotting China is expensive, expect to spend at least 10% more on most things. — Benkei

The problem isn't just China. It's all those poor countries who at a terrible toll on their people and natural environment produce things that Westerners buy cheaply and treat poorly.
Instead, cast your boycotting net more widely, like I said elsewhere:

What we should campaign against is the desire to get more for less. Against greed. Against the desire to keep up the appearance of a rich or at least middle class person while not actually being one.

Countries that produce low or lower quality goods and export them cheaply to first world countries are feeding precisely these Western desires. If Westerners wouldn't be so damn greedy, those poor countries wouldn't ruin their own people and their own land, as there'd be no demand for those cheap low(er) quality goods and unethical means of production.

You can point out how dirty the industry in those mostly poor countries is, how unethical their means of production, how totalitarian their governments. But are you willing, and more importantly, are you able to live your current lifestyle without buying their products? — baker

Euthyphro is just a character, playing the role of the fool. — Olivier5

He seems like a constructed, composite character, a literary device.

I'm reminded of Polonius: "To thine own self be true" is what people often quote, in an ironic twist as the only thing they've remembered from "Hamlet".

Are such characters wise? They defend social norms, the status quo, the taboos, and as such, they ensure for themselves a measure of safety and wellbeing. So in that sense, they are wise. But on the other hand, social norms do not form a consistent, non-contradictory system, so anybody defending those norms is bound to run into a problem eventually, a problem that cannot be navigated without incurring damage to oneself or others. I think wisdom would be to be able to behave in line with social norms, but in a way that never results in damage to oneself (and ideally, others), but I don't see how this is possible.

The question of whether Plato (and Socrates) were actually monotheistic is a vexed one. I think the most straight-forward reading is that they were not - at least, monotheism is not an explicit theme in this dialogue. But as I noted previously in this thread, because of the subsequent adoption (or appropriation) of Plato by the Greek-speaking theologians, then it's common to read monotheism into the dialogues even if it's not explicitly present. — Wayfarer

Sure. And as I've been saying, scenarios that are typical for demigods (who are not omnimax, such as the Greek goods) get transposed as if they apply for God (Jehovah fits the description of a demigod much better than he does that of God, a point apparently lost on so many Abrahamists).

One more footnote, on the dialectic of belief and un-belief. Because of the constitution of the Christian faith, religion is to all intents equated with belief as distinct from knowledge, in Western culture. Christianity is a doxastic religion as distinct from a form of philosophical rationalism or gnosticism. The latter seeks to 'ascend' to a higher perspective, as it were, through the disciplined analysis of ideas traced to their origin. Christianity rejects that [in favour of 'simple faith' which is open to all].

Of course, the characteristic difference between a top-down approach (divine revelation) and a bottom-up approach (man tries to learn the truth about God on his own).

Christianity rejects that in favour of 'simple faith' which is open to all.

Which, of course, it is not.

The distinctive problem of post-Christian culture is that the platonic kind of philosophical spirituality is automatically characterised along with belief and rejected on that account. That is the dialectic of belief and un-belief that underlies many of the debates. See Metaphysical Mistake, Karen Armstrong.

It's the killing, raping, and pillaging done in the name of religion that I can't get past.

From the article linked above:
Christians bought into the scientific theology, and some embarked on the doomed venture of turning their faith's mythos into logos.

The impetus for this was surely the Christian emphasis on Divine Judgment and eternal damnation. Christian religions stand and fall with eternal damnation; without it, Christianity has no reason for existing. I don't agree with what Armstrong is saying above. I don't think Christians bought into the scientific theology, but rather, resorted to it in order to support their judgmentalism and weak identity.

This is the true intent of the dialogue, to uphold the principle of piety whilst endowing it with a deeper, Platonic meaning. — Apollodorus

Sure, but since it is unknowable what it is that is truly pleasing to gods (because the gods themselves do not speak to us directly), the subject of piety becomes moot, and at best, becomes a matter of having high regard for what a particular human says.

Socrates is the example of law-abiding citizen par excellence. — Apollodorus

Clearly, he was not such, when he denied the gods.

I think Socrates is taking issue with wrong interpretations of piety, not piety itself. — Apollodorus

The way I see it, he was sentenced to death for failing to respect social taboos. Of course, when people are punished for failing to respect social taboos, their punishers don't use terms like "failing to respect social taboos", but something more socially tangible, like "murder" or "treason".

In philosophical (Platonic) life, piety is practicing philosophy whose aim is to "become as godlike as possible" = "serving one's own God", i.e., one's own self. — Apollodorus

On a personal level, piety is being good to one's own self, the inner divine intelligence, by recognizing its divine identity and acting according to what is good for the self (nous) in Platonic terms. — Apollodorus

Can you provide some reference for this? Because it seems to be an awfully modern, self-helpy idea.

What's your metaphor doing for you? What does it illuminate, or ask? What is the night, the small stars? Or is it all just a kind of something that you're not sure of? — Moliere

Yes ...

It's the height of the gardening season here. I get up around 4.30 in the morning (as soon as it is bright enough to see) and start working in the garden and work until about 9 AM. Then, during the day, it's too hot for gardening. Late in the afternoon, around 5 and later, once the shadows start to fall, I start working again and so until 8.30 PM, when it's too dark to see.

Taking this is as my context, how am I supposed to understand the metaphor in the OP?