science has an inbuilt course-correction mechanism i.e. it detects its own flaws and autocorrects them — TheMadFool

On time?

AT least do yourself the service of responding to what I wrote, rather than making stuff up. — Banno

*sigh*

/note to self: Must grow a dick & balls. Otherwise participating in discussion very difficult./

Says he, assured of his certainty.

Don't play coy. Certainty rocks!

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html

Worth the read. — Banno

The Hare Krishnas would call this an example of the predicament inherent in demigod worship (a demigod is not omnimax, hence a number of problems emerge from worshipping a demigod).

Pffft. We're in this because we pursue certainty.

*sigh*

John, our ontogenesis example, is born and raised into a religious society. His notions of morality are entirely defined by said religion. He believes that religion was handed down to humans by God. He has no notion of the evolutionary development of religion as you sketched out earlier.

Are you saying that John can neverthless have a notion of morality that is completely independent of the religion of the society he lives in?

This is enviable, don't you think?
— baker

Not inevitable. — Tom Storm

I said enviable. You don't envy them their certainty?

As you can see, there are certain areas in philosophy (Nihilism, Absurdism) that have known negative effects on our mental well-being — TheMadFool

That's wrong. People don't go nuts from reading philosophy. A normal person reading Kierkegaard or Sartre will say "Pfft!" and move on. Why is the general public view of philosophy so negative? Because to most people, philosophy is simply "much to do about nothing".

People's interest in a particular philosophy is aligned with their preexisting tendencies. It's not that reading, say, Camus would make one adopt an absurdist view. Rather, it's already having an absurdist view that will make one interested in what others had to say about it.

Well, like language, morals emerges in and belongs to the commons, that is, it's a social, public, process-artifact and not merely a matter of individual, or private, expression.

Your "phylogenic vs ontogenic" comparison is a non sequitur. — 180 Proof

Explain why.

The two are two different perspectives on the matter.

The religious group can ostracize a particular member, but it cannot ostracize itself. Thus the individual person is subject to experiences and forces that the species as a whole is not.

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man — James Riley

How do you know that?

- - -

Religion doesn't provide a stable moral foundation. As we have all probably noticed, even within a single religious tradition, morality is whatever a believer or a particular church community subjectively determines it to be though interpretation of scripture or 'knowing' what God's will is.
/.../ — Tom Storm

Still, the monotheists characteristically operate with the idea that they are "right about God", that they know the truth about God and everything related to God.

The religious, generally, have the conviction, the confidence that they are right about morality, and they refer to some external source for this. They quite distinctly have no sense that their beliefs about morality are somehow to any extent of their own making.

This is enviable, don't you think?

Proponents of scientism are modeling their certainties by this as well, when they claim that morality is a product of evolution etc.

Neither religion nor secular ethics were ever conceived in a social vacuum. There is always a social context--human desires, human needs. human weaknesses, material conditions--that are addressed in either religious or secular morality. No moral system was ever without a predecessor. — Bitter Crank

Sure. Do you have some idea on how to both acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and yet have a sense of certainty about moral issues?


Most people seem to have only one or the other. They acknowledge the relativity and derivativity of moral systems, and feel a measure of uncertainty in deciding about issues of morality. Or they have that certainty in moral issues, but also take a simplistic view of the origin of morality (usually, they are monotheists or proponents of scientism).

How is it not crystal clear? God commands it, it is right, we should do it. I'm not saying divine command theory is infallible, but it makes ethics very simple. — ToothyMaw

So what's your solution to "Which God is the right one?" ?

Why is it right? Because God says so. — Manuel

Within the context of a particular monotheistic religion, this is a valid, non-fallacious argument from authority.

If you only do the right thing because you are commanded to you are not acting morally, you are acting the slave. — DingoJones

Indeed, and some religions criticize believers who obey religious laws out of fear of punishment or out of hope for a reward.

Yes, of course; the Euthyphro suggests why, in effect, it is necessary to do so. More prosaically, though, if people had lived in larger-than-a-few-families social groupings generations before adopting-forming a 'cultus' (and, of course, archealogy, shows that they did), then they must've had some customs (i.e. mores) of reciprocal violence avoidance, mutual aid, free-rider disincentives (like blame-stigma or expulsion), etc to which they adhered sufficiently for the social group to survive. Like, for example, the church preceded the canonic bible, the Hebrew tribes wandering for decades preceded them adopting Mosaic Law; morality, which is presupposed by eusocial group survival, precedes building institutions / monuments like relgions or states (Aristotle?) The reverse order just doesn't make sense empirically or logically. — 180 Proof

Contrast phylogenesis vs. ontogenesis.

Phylogenetically, what you're saying above would be applicable for the human species as a whole.
But as far as the development of a particular individual is concerned?? It would apply only if morality is somehow genetically encoded and generally not a product of socialization/acculturation.

(And we can't conduct a study on this.)

What I do notice is that the tolerance towards sharp debate has gone down. It is a society wide trend I feel so nothing different here than in reel life. The ad homs and the snide remarks were all there back in the day as much as now, but the hurt or indignation against them was less.
— Tobias

Now that you have drawn my attention to this, I think you are quite on the mark. So the question arrises, why should this be so? — Banno

Global socio-economic crisis. People's energy and attention are more focused on making ends meet and making it through the day.

Taking ad homs and snide remarks in stride requires a measure of social and material comfort and security in one's life.

It's similar as with humor. I don't know if there's a study on how well people indulge in humor under acute and chronic duress, but there should be such studies. Common sense says that when one's life is hard (socially and economically), one will be less able and willing to indulge in humor.

...those who do not respond to the criticism, but instead to the criticiser. — Banno

Not all ad hominems are fallacious:

Valid types of ad hominem arguments
Argument from commitment
An ad hominem argument from commitment is a type of valid argument that employs, as a dialectical strategy, the exclusive utilization of the beliefs, convictions, and assumptions of those holding the position being argued against, i.e., arguments constructed on the basis of what other people hold to be true. This usage is generally only encountered in specialist philosophical usage or in pre-20th century usages.[30] This type of argument is also known as the ex concessis argument (Latin for "from what has been conceded already").[31]

Ad hominem arguments, testimony and authority
Ad hominem arguments are relevant where the person being criticised is advancing arguments from authority, or testimony based on personal experience, rather than proposing a formal syllogism.[32]

An example is a dialogue at the court, where the attorney cross-examines an eyewitness, bringing to light the fact that the witness was convicted in the past for lying. This might suggest the conclusion that the witness should not be trusted, which would not be a fallacy.[33] Related issues arise with arguments from authority. If a witness claiming to be a medical expert asserts, on the basis of their expert knowledge, that a particular product is harmless, an opponent could make the ad hominem argument that the witness' expertise is less than claimed, or that the witness has been paid by the makers of the product.

More complex issues arise in cases where the conclusion is merely probable rather than deducible with certainty. An advocate for a particular proposition might present a body of evidence supporting that proposition while ignoring evidence against it. Pointing out that the advocate is not neutral, but has a conflict of interest, is a valid form of ad hominem argument.

/.../

Criticism as a fallacy
Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[34] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning (discussing facts about the speaker or author relative to the value of his statements) is essential to understanding certain moral issues due to the connection between individual persons and morality (or moral claims), and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning (involving facts beyond dispute or clearly established) of philosophical naturalism.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Valid_types_of_ad_hominem_arguments

Is it the case that all isms are essentially nothing-but-isms? — Janus

Only if all explanations, definitions, and theories are isms.

Then there's the Social Hierarchy Argument: People need to learn that human society functions as a matter of hierarchy and that it is of vital importance to learn one's place in said hierarchy, and also, that one must fight (sometimes literally, with fists and kicks, other times less physically, with money and power) for one's place in it.


Although it seems that most of the time that parents and teachers beat children in their care it's just to blow off steam, to take out their anger and frustration (which aren't necessarily caused by or about the children) on someone who cannot defend themselves. Similarly as some people kick dogs, hobos, or run other drivers off the road.

I've merely been responding to what you wrote. — Banno

And operated on several assumptions of your own.

Whether you are in favour or against religion is of no relevance.

It is of relevance when you talk to me as if I was religious.

↪baker was your supposed answer to my "What is it that is reincarnated", but is nothing beyond a recitation of dogma - indeed, two dogmas, Buddhist and Hindu. It is you who frames the discussion in religious terms, not I.

Standard question, standard reply. What did you expect? A non-religious/areligious answer to a religious question??

Asking "What is it that is reincarnated?" and then refusing the standard religious replies, is like asking "How much is 2 + 2?" and stipulating "But you may not say 4."

This is not about jargon, it's about how one is to make use of talk of reincarnation. If it has no truth value, it cannot be about what happens. Instead its role is myth or ideology.

Of course it's jargon.
An outsider to religion has no meaningful context for talk of reincarnation. Similarly as someone who has no knowledge of chemistry or physics has no meaningful context for talk of molecular bonds. Etc.

But it still needs to be established how big a factor powerlessness is in particular cases. — Apollodorus

Well, we can only speculate on such things.

I'm sure even powerful people might come to suspect that a conspiracy against them is being hatched by rivals or opponents if they think there is evidence to justify their suspicion.

Holding a position of power and feeling powerless are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
In fact, it can be speculated that some people seek positions of power precisely to compensate for their deeply felt powerlessness.

Why shouldn't different propositions have different ways of being found true or false? — Banno

Such as might makes right?
Morality is written by winners?
Truth is written by winners?
Moral propositions are to be found true or false in accordance with a particular religion?
Gut feelings?

We should make a list of categories:
1. Propositions whose truth or falsity is determined by gut feeling
2. Propositions whose truth or falsity is determined by consensus
3. Propositions whose truth or falsity is determined by examining empirical evidence
etc.
Now we just need to decide which proposition belongs to which category (and why ...).

(Which brings us to the theory of pramanas, means of knowledge.)

In traditional moral systems, it was assumed that one was subject to judgement by God, or would endure the consequences of their karma in future lives. In the absence of those regulatory systems, the question has no clear answer, as is exemplified by the diversity of responses in this thread. — Wayfarer

This seems to indicate that issues of morality can, to begin with, be meaningfully discussed only in the context of such a moral regulatory system as religion. This points in the direction of moral relativism / moral contextualism. And that answering a question like "Is X moral?" is the same kind of question as "What are the attributes of God?" -- in the sense that like the second question, the first one as well can only be answered with a reference to a particular religious doctrine, but that beyond that, it does not apply.
Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion ...

But moral judgements are first and foremost about meaning, in terms of what the facts imply for me and for other subjects. — Wayfarer

Such an approach becomes questionable when it comes to people who have been stigmatized or ostracized by a society.

How does a stigmatized or ostracized person make moral judgments? They don't have a meaningful and valuable reference group anymore.

That moral judgement requires something more than quantitative analysis? — Wayfarer

Such as gut feeling?

However, the question arises as to whether feeling powerless is (1) a fundamental or innate feature of their psychology or (2) the result of some factual observation that motivated that feeling (a) in general and/or (b) in relation to the particular theory. — Apollodorus

It's possibly due to some early and powerful experience of powerlessness that the person internalized and generalized. Consider how they tame elephants: When the elephant is young, they tie it with a strong rope or chain to a pole. The elephant tries to free itself, but at the time, the young elephant is still not strong enough to break the rope or chain or to pull out the pole. It gives in and stops trying. Once such an elephant becomes an adult, it can be controlled by a thin rope which it is by now more than strong enough to break -- but it doesn't even try.

Once a person has internalized and generalized that sense of powerlessness, narratives aligned with that powerlessness will appeal to them.

When I was little, we would bring the milk directly from a small dairy farm, in a container like this. I couldn't find the English word for it.

That said: Do you have anything to add on the issue of Buddhist epistemology?

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One's perception of one's own power or self-efficacy. People who feel powerless seem to be more prone toward conspiracy theories.
This is just a casual observation.

Perhaps this is true:

PS: A 1,000 bucks donation gets you an insta ban of a user of choice, no questions asked. — Benkei

Are you serious about this, or not ...

That's the cool style I'm talking about above.

My feeling is that the tolerance towards posts and threads that aren't even close to having philosophical quality has increased. Which means the kind of evangelical religious stuff, racist apologist low-quality posts, ad hominems, and BS posts that destroys any quality focus on a specific topic just keeps going. — Christoffer

I haven't been here long enough to notice this trend. At first, I was quite apprehensive about posting here, because it seemed that being cool and readily and creatively dishing out ad homs left and right was the way to be. That is, that's it's not enough to make one's point in plain language, but that one has to be able to wrap it up as something cool, insider humor, insider insights, along with a measure of ad homs. And that if one cannot keep up with this style, one just isn't cool enough for this forum.

Knowing stuff is good. — Banno

There is a lot of knowledge that is completely useless, depending on one's time and circumstance.
Does knowing what the halflife of plutonium is in any way help a person to make wise career choices, for example?

You caught a boot.
— Wayfarer

Quiet a few, as was expected. — Banno

You look like a true believer, so that nothing could convince you otherwise.

I say that the problem with science is when its methodological attitude is generalised to describe the universe in general. — Wayfarer

The problem with science is that it is done with the purpose of solving the problem of suffering -- and then it doesn't deliver, it just makes people oblivious to suffering, or implies or even declares people to be the actual problem (the good old "no man, no problem").

Science is, basically, putting lipstick on a pig.

Only in the laboratory of life - but who will be the judge? There's the rub. — Wayfarer

This doesn't explain anything!

Who are the élite? — Tom Storm

If you have to ask, you're not part of it.

There is far greater power in numbers, working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education, etc. This is the only point. It has been systematically beaten out of people's heads for decades. — Xtrix

In some cases, there's also the overjustification effect:

The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Overjustification is an explanation for the phenomenon known as motivational "crowding out." The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect

When working as a team, collaboration, networking, solidarity, education get beaten into people's heads (in return for a promised reward), people lose interest in the very things they're supposed to be interested in (and in which they originally had a measure of interest).

I think you are confusing what people want to hear with what they need to hear. People like to think of themselves as rugged individualists, risk-taking, bootstrapping, captains of daring-do. /.../ — James Riley

What I said was, I bet you would struggle write a simple elegant paragraph articulating community over individualism in the manner of that speech of Thatcher's. — Tom Storm

Absolutely, on both counts.
I think this difficulty might have something to do with where (in what social context) and by whom the text is presented.
A politician (regardless of political affiliation) is simply not in the position to bring across a message of community in a way that would not betray itself.

The message of community over individualism can be meaningfully delivered only in the context of a family and perhaps a work team, but beyond those, the group of people expected to work together and care about eachother is just too big and too abstract for the message of community to still make sense and be anything but empty words.

Yeah, so I'm asking what's so individualistic about being poor? — Shawn

Nobody likes you when you're down and out. It doesn't get more individualistic than that.

First, it’s creating a problem that didn’t exist. Much like welfare queens, it’s a myth created to justify shifting power from the public to the private sphere. If all Thatcher sees is people wanting government to solve all their problems, that’s her own delusions. People should demand their government do more to help them. — Xtrix

As a monarchist, it's also probably how she genuinely saw things: citizens as subjects of the government, the way people are subjects of the monarch. She might not have seen herself as an elected official at all. Subjects of the monarch owe the monarch, not the other way around.
Similarly, Trump the POTUS appeared to see the American people as his employees and himself as their boss.

You don't see what it does for you. It's like the knowledge of good and evil for those not consigned to the Devil. — thewonder

That requires more than just mere empathy; it requires a very specific processing of the emotion within a specific ethical and metaphysical worldview.

Last year when reputable scientists suggested that covid might have escaped from a lab, they were marginalized and called Trump-lovers. — fishfry

I don't recall seeing any of that in Europe.
But there are distinct China haters who've been promoting the idea that the Chinese made the virus and let it out.
China hater = Trump lover?

How would you summarize the importance of empathy in human nature? — Shawn

It's generally counterproductive to success in business and formal interactions with others. It's only useful insofar it helps one detect another's vulnerabilities (in order to exploit them).

Well, that depends on a lot of different things, but as I interpret your meaning, I will say yes there is. An extremely empathetic person will spend the majority of their day in tears, as all of the sadness and suffering and injustices of the world will simply overwhelm them emotionally. Every story about some kid with cancer, or some other tragedy will result in emotional pain by the empathic person.

Also, this may be going beyond just empathy but I think it’s a reasonable conclusion, the overly empathetic person will probably end up broke, homeless, and/or starving because they will feel compelled to give their money, possessions, etc. to every charlatan the encounter. — Pinprick

Absolutely.
Empathy is far too easy to exploit for it to be any kind of reliable means in human interactions.

Pretty hard to rear young without empathy. — Tom Storm

Depends on the kind of person you want.
Not so long ago, parents and teachers had little or no empathy for those in their care. The kid had to live in accordance with the expectations of the parents and teachers, not the other way around. If the kid didn't make it, well, tough luck, his loss.

The anti-science responses so far have been trivial; middle class whinging. — Banno

Well, sure, you can dismiss all of them that way. Just put on your Trump hat.




But hey, it's their life, their choice, right. Besides, pollution is fun for children, innit!