No one doubts that but the question remains, so what? To what extent do we want to amplify or diminish this curiosity. — Tom Storm

On the contrary, how could one not be interested in this private experience and how could one not explore it?

I do wonder how one does phenomenology with any kind of rigour and if anyone can provide an example of a benefit it provides in more specific terms. — Tom Storm

It's pretty much what practice according to Early Buddhism is about.
See this article, for example: https://pathpress.org/notes-on-meditation/

Phenomenology may well study 'you looking out of the window', but what consigns it to the lesser status it suffers is not that, it's the fact that the corpus of information is derives from that study is completely ephemeral, having no anchor of 'fit-to-world' to hold it. — Isaac

Sure, the phenomenological perspective is useless for scientific purposes. But one's own experience is all that a person has, and all that is or can be relevant to a person.
Even when one contemplates the words of others (whatever those words may be about), it still comes down to one's own experience of those words.

What I never understand with Nietzsche is how the negation of all philosophy can itself be included with philosophy. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the same way that some Christians say that theirs is not a religion, but the truth.

Moral norms and values appear to have an external source. — Bartricks

But how can you tell whether you have the correct knowledge of them?

Honey, they are perfectly okay with you burning in hell for all eternity. They don't care what you think of them.

I started reading it, but it seemed too alien to me to continue. The way he describes Christians is nothing like what I've come to know Christians.

We answered that earlier. It's a metaphor. — Tom Storm

I have a hard time understanding the basic premise. The idea that there was once some kind of "golden era" or "an enchanted time" when people took religion seriously (including actually believing in God) seems alien to me.

I grew up among religious people in a monoreligious monoculture. Those people didn't take religion seriously. They took seriously the keeping up of appearance of religiosity, but beyond that, they were as indifferent toward their religion as they were to the air they breathed. It seems most likely to me that this is how it has been throughout history.

The idea that one can fight evil, and yet remain pure, untouched by it is extremely appealing.

What do people think about Nietzsche’s Death of God? — Tom Storm

Did God ever live?

In Western society, according to Weber, scientific understanding is more highly valued than belief, and processes are oriented toward rational goals, as opposed to traditional society, whereby "the world remains a great enchanted garden”. — Wikipedia, ‘Disenchantment’

What studies did Weber base such assessments on?

But they do have that Darwinistic, Nietzschean Übermensch power of presence to them.

But then again, maybe we're the ones making that power of their presence possible to begin with, by giving our attention to them.

I posit that the hatred is because they rob the world of magic — Tom Storm

How about asking them?

I don't think the New Atheists "rob the world" of magic. I feel the same way about them as I do about religion. Both are dogmatic, and in both cases, the lowly person in the pew/academic hall has no say in the matter. It makes no difference to me whether I go to church or to a science lecture at a university: in both cases, I'm expected to bow my head, unquestioningly believe what I'm told, and, for heaven's sake, keep my mouth shut. Oh, and pay them, the more, the better. To both of them, I'm just a faceless number, and at best, a source of money. This makes me feel redundant and unwilling to take seriously what they say.

To conclude, childbirth is immoral but is beautiful art, some may prefer this lifestyle, but that should be a decision for the child to make primarily as it must live in unison with it's parents. — ghostlycutter

In some Dharmic religions, it is believed that in order for conception to occur, the will of the prospective father, the will of the prospective mother, and the will of the prospective child need to be in accord. An implication of such an outlook is that in those religions, they believe that whoever was born, in fact wanted to be born, so people are deemed as being responsible for their own existence.

180 and I are aware of this. Stoicism and Buddhism have mush to recommend. Their virtue is not to be found in their metaethics, though. It is found in their commended actions. — Banno

How can virtue be found in metaethics?

Ancient systems like Early Buddhism are examples of virtue epistemology: they start with the premise that in order to know the truth, in order to know "how things really are", one needs to be virtuous. In such systems, moral behavior is a means to an end (the end being complete cessation of suffering).

My view is, these 'thinnest and emptiest concepts' are indeed of a higher order of reality, but unless you're able to comprehend them properly, they do indeed become empty words. As they were handed down and ossified into theoretical dogma, they lost all connection to reality, but that is a flaw in their exponents. — Wayfarer

Are you then suggesting that Nietzsche didn't properly comprehend those higher concepts?

( ;) )

They all have their spiritual claims, and in "my book" Christianity alone stands out as absurd — Gregory

It's not like the Christians care how they stand in your book.

How did you come to know about God?
Did God contact you?
Have you read books on the topic of God?

I'd put it this way: people care for – respect themselves – in so far as they develop habits for caring for – respecting – others.

That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone.
— Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE — 180 Proof

This doesn't seem to be how people usually think and act, though.
"Do unto others before they do unto you" and "He who casts the first stone is innocent" seem to describe people more accurately. Generally, respecting oneself doesn't seem to have anything much to do with respect for others by way of one being conducive to the other. If anything, people generally seem to conceive of respect for others coming at the cost of self-respect, so that one has to choose: either respect others and disrespect yourself; or respect yourself and disrespect others; but you can't have both.

There’s some remark from one of the ancients that I can never source, along the lines of, without the consolations of philosophy, man would be the most unfortunate of all creatures. The idea is that because humans can perceive something beyond death and suffering, then the awareness they have of death and suffering, by virtue of their intelligence, is no longer the curse it would be. But that is exactly, precisely the kind of sentiment that Nietzsche repudiates, as far as I know. — Wayfarer

Can we find some passages that directly speak about this?

What is the source of your thoughts about God?

No I don't see the problem. They are both true or both false. These are not logical absolutes, they are folk sayings applied to individual situations. — Tom Storm

I think they are similar to the way language allows one to sometimes say "I'm wearing brown shoes", and other times to say "I'm wearing black shoes". Ie. it's not the case that one is objectively true and the other false, but that in a particular context, one is true and the other is not.

When it comes to idioms/phrasemes, the matter may seem a bit more difficult because idioms/phrasemes can look like bits of universal wisdom that is supposed to apply regardless of context.

I think a solution to this is to remember that every linguistic utterance a person makes at any given times is just a use of words intended to bring across a particular meaning, and a less or more clear expression of the person's intention to communicate in the first place. And also, that idioms/phrasemes can be "translated" into neutral language (which can be quite verbose, though -- we use idioms/phrasemes to say more with fewer words).

To use an earlier example:
cleaning up after a messy party - many hands make light work
Someone in that context can utter the words:
"Come on, folks, many hands make light work!"
or
"Come on, folks, if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards!"

In that context, by saying "many hands make light work" the speaker intends to say "if everybody does some of the work, we'll be done with the cleanup sooner and nobody will be very tired afterwards". But the latter isn't as economical and as encouraging as the former.

That out of the way, my aim is to find out how to make sense of these frank contradictions. Is there some context in which we could reconcile these opposing recommendations? — TheMadFool

This is what the study of folk psychology addresses:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/

We are confused. — TheMadFool

Nah. We study linguistics and the meaning and role of idioms.

What are some examples of that?
Would encouraging others not to drink and drive (so that they don't run you over) be an example of your approach to morality?

How is your approach to morality similar or different to the one sketched out here in this Early Buddhist text?

You needn't apologize to me.

Some resources on the first noble truth:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html

and

Life Isn't Just Suffering
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/lifeisnt.html

If I'm understanding you and correctly, you both come from the perspective that morality has to do with the way we treat others and is motivated by care for others.

I'm saying there are other approaches to morality where care for others plays a minor part, if any at all, yet the person who adheres to such morality behaves similarly as the one who is motivated by care for others. Two examples of such systems of morality are Stoicism and Early Buddhism.

So - now what? Is that it? — Wayfarer

Is the fact that we can conceive of the insufficiency of life as it is usually lived evidence that there is "more to life"?

How come we can be dissatisfied like that?

Philosophy is supposed to be love of wisdom.
Wisdom should have something vitally to do with how one goes about one's daily life, 24/7.
— baker

That's an agreeable statement. Don't you think, however, that deciphering a larger meaning can aid the living of one's life? — Aryamoy Mitra

Reflection/self-examination/philosophy are not necessarily mutually exclusive with "living life".

Although I can think of some ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence that are dead-ends, leave one paralyzed. So that if one thinks in terms of those ways of attempting to rationalize one's existence one indeed ends up in a situation of a complete logical disjunction: one either "lives life", or one attempts to justify it, but one cannot have both. This deadlock situation is one that can occur, for example, if one tries to rationalize one's existence within the scope of (mono)theism when one doesn't have an already existing commitment to a particular (mono)theism.
This deadlock situation that "spiritual seekers" can often find themselves in.

A lot more to say here, but the ball's in your court now.

That's an assertion that is not even close to being necessarily true. Actually, it might be quite the opposite, that someone is pessimistic because they are poor, and I wouldn't blame them! — schopenhauer1

And how is their pessimism (philosophical or plain) helping them in that poverty?

But I want you to understand that there is a distinction between "pessimism' and "Pessimism". Regular pessimism is simply an outlook or a personality tendency. Philosophical pessimism generally has a larger picture understanding how suffering is related to the world. It's the difference between someone being stoical and a Stoic.

Exactly, which just goes to show that philosophical pessimism is viable for the elites, but not for others, which I've been telling you all along.

Schopy would never invite you over for afternoon tea.

Er, so? — Bartricks

So you start a thread to show that antinatalism is compatible with something that you consider to be, well, a figment of imagination.

If you'd be writing the script of a soap opera, that could be a worthwhile endeavor, but otherwise ...

Most philosophical assertions are fallible in one form or another, and they are no exception; they've been contended on innumerable accounts. Posturing and appeals are quintessential of every academic. — Aryamoy Mitra

So an academic is, essentially, a failed politician?

My take is that the modern world has lost all sense of the dimension against which the sense of a 'higher intelligence' can be calibrated because the metaphors by which it is presented are no longer intelligible to us. /.../ — Wayfarer

Where do you get such optimism? Because even though your assessment of the human situation is rather dark, it rests on the assumption that humans are able to care about other than just self-interest and survival, and that such care isn't necessarily detrimental to them -- and that assumption strikes me as distinctly optimistic.

See above, liars. There is no less hesitancy for a soldier of fortune to kill an unarmed person he has been indoctrinated to perceive as a threat under the guise of "God's will" than there is under the guise of "national interest", both have been set in such a way they interconnect with the only intrinsic and universal plea men of all walks of life are capable to understand. that being self-interest and survival. — Outlander

Liars, or just pursuing their self-interest and survival? All is fair in love and war, right?

I'm inclined to think that God belief was developed not for the sake of explaining human origins and natural phenomena, but primarily for a social group to justify whatever effort was needed to ensure their survival and, ideally, supremacy over others.

But as more and more social groups developed or resorted to this strategy, it's become ineffective, hence "the death of God".

I never made any indication as to romantic or true love being “perfect” and free from wrongs/ failures. There are always blemishes. We are all imperfect. Perfection is untenable. But you can have a deep love despite these things that’s what makes it worthwhile for example if we all wait for this unblemished perfection I’m afraid we will be waiting forever — Benj96

Then the sort of idealistic self-sacrificing love that you speak of in the OP is unavailable to humans.

In Turkish culture they have a standard expression one can say if one is asked "Where are you going?" but one is angry or doesn't like the asker, so one says: "To hell!" ("Cehennem!")
I've also seen that some people add "Do you want to come along?"

↪baker At any point in a 3 or more data-point history (curve) of observations. — 180 Proof

How far apart are the points, and how do you determine what a relevant interval is?

According to Lewis, Jesus could only have been evil, insane, or God. Let's see how this works out. — Gregory

Lewis' trilemma is a variation of Credo quia absurdum.

C.S. Lewis was a boring writer and knew nothing of philosophy. He knew nothing about philosophy. He has nothing to offer anyone and should have known better — Gregory

Then maybe you should return the disfavor ...

I followed your link and here's the deal - you define morality as "how adaptive they are for prosocially coexisting" but is this, your, definition of morality itself, and I quote, "...adaptive for prosocially coexisting..."? — TheMadFool

He's welcome to demonstrate that "how adaptive they are for prosocially coexisting" doesn't amount to "going with the crowd" or "as the wind blows".

For example, ideas in favor of slavery were very adaptive for prosocially coexisting when living in a society where there was slavery. Were they therefore, morally good?

- - -

, how do you determine the relevant point at which you measure "how adaptive for prosocially coexisting" something is?

We can easily point to a time and place where, for example, ideas in favor of slavery were very adaptive for prosocially coexisting, and another time and place where they were not.

(We can also point to a time and place where ideas contrary to slavery were not adaptive for prosocially coexisting, even though they were elevated to the level of law.)

toicism provides that we should act in certain ways towards each other and the rest of the world. It holds that we should act reasonably and virtuously, but it doesn't provide that we should do so towards others because they have certain "natural rights." We should do so because that is the proper way for us to live. For example, we shouldn't covet or steal what belongs to others because they have a "right" to their property, natural or otherwise, but because for a Stoic such things are indifferent and we disturb ourselves needlessly in pursuing or acquiring them which prevents us from having the tranquility and wisdom to live a life of virtue. — Ciceronianus the White

So let's contrast this with a couple of statements from another thread:

Surely you’d grant that morality derives from respect for others, not for oneself... — Banno

I think, to use these terms, morality derives respect (care) for oneself by one habitualizing (non-reciprocal) respect (care) for others. — 180 Proof

, what say you?

And just as there had already been a slow accumulation of knowledge about reality haphazardly following a similar process by the time people like Francis Bacon start advocating that that methodology be recognized and practiced intentionally instead of relying on the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passed for education in their time, so too I'm not contesting that something like this has already been happening over the history of civilization, and that through it we've slowly made some moral progress, but I'm advocating like Bacon et al that we recognize that process and practice it intentionally, instead of the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passes for governance today. — Pfhorrest

Who is "we"?

but I'm advocating like Bacon et al that we recognize that process and practice it intentionally, instead of the mess of baseless authoritarianism that passes for governance today.

For a person who is low in the hierarchy chain, nothing changes, whether those at the top are a religious elite, or a scientific elite.