I was talking about the point at which engagement stops, rather than the nature of the action to take. It goes back to what I said right at the beginning, most of these ideas are not new, and those that are become old very quickly. Most of what people consider 'not engaging with the ideas' is more properly "I've hard these ideas before, they were daft then and they're not any less daft in their new clothes". — Isaac

I suppose it comes down to how much education a person has and how much reading and thinking they've done so far, so considerable differences among individuals are to be expected because of that.

But a person's life experiences can also radically change their outlook on life and change the way they view ideas they had dismissed long ago.
For example, I have a situation with several new neighbors for about a year now that has made me completely rethink moral realism.
To say nothing of how the election of Trump made me rethink things.

then you completely discount the possibility that other people aren't depressed. — Kenosha Kid

It's not that they are depressed.

It's that you are lucky and nevertheless implicitly take credit for this luck.

↪Kenosha Kid The question that arises is why would you want to when you don’t have to keep living. All that sounds like a chore to make life bearable and when you die you won’t remember anything at all. So why not skip to the end and not concern yourself with doing things you like? That argument only works if you have to stay alive in which case you should do stuff you like. But if you don’t then I see no reason to do so. — Darkneos

The effects of a pleasant life shouldn't be underestimated. When someone has been fortunate enough to be able to enjoy their life, this feeds back into how they experience life: they ejnoy it and look forward to it.
Such a person becomes incapable of empathizing with those less fortunate.

What such a person fails to recognize is:
1. that their enjoyment of life is not the result of a deliberate effort on their part to do so,
2. that their enjoyment of life depends on factors and resources that are beyond their control.


Such a person is like gambler who won the lottery and who is on the trajectory to lose all he gained, but isn't aware of this yet.

As much as I want to buy that from what I gather it's not simple at all like that. If that were the case then Buddhist monks or enlightened ones would commit suicide. Yet despite Buddhism knowing life is suffering and craving they claim that isn't why they stick around. — Darkneos

They'd probably say they stick around in an effort to make an end to the craving, make an end to the suffering -- and live to tell about it.

To learn, and to teach. — Pfhorrest

But are others here for those same purposes?

Do you believe there are people here who come here to be taught by you?

Roman Catholics, when they go to heaven, will be glad that some people are suffering in eternal hellfire.
This is doctrinally enforced joy at seeing others suffer.

It's odd how people speculate about why people go on living as if it is something that they wouldn't consider for themselves, but surely there must be some reason such a lot of THEM do? — unenlightened

It's a tabooed topic.

So if someone were to come on and politely, patiently explain why Jews were the inferior race and need to be exterminated for the benefit of the master race, and I told them to "fuck off", I'd be the one in the wrong there? We should, rather, have a long in-depth and polite conversation exploring our difference of opinion about the extermination of an entire race. — Isaac

This is one of those situations where the impotence of internet discussion forums becomes painfully evident.

Should I interfere at the building of the gas chambers? Or is it too soon whilst the debate is still to be settled?

Would you actually go out to the building site and interfere?

So for all practical purposes you couldn't actually tell the difference, in any given discussion because it's extremely unlikely you're going to know you interlocutor's past sufficiently to know if they have ever given any ideas a fair shake - ie you'll never know if they're dismissing your idea out of hand because they decided to do so on that occasion (philosopher) or because they always do so (idealogue). — Isaac

Of course. Like I said earlier -- It's not like one intends to take one's interlocutor's from this forum out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.
Again, it comes down to what one wishes to accomplish with debate or discussion.

Frankly, I think much of what we do here is a kind of philotainment. For socializing and for fun, some people go out drinking and talking nonsense, some play golf, some remodel their house, and some engage in philosophy-ish discussions on the internetz ...

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.
— baker
OK - have at it then.

Perhaps I'l start a thread on this some day.

I'd just like to be clear that nowhere am I advocating disrespecting anybody. Even group 5, I think, still see themselves as good people holding their views for good reasons; they're just ones to whom communicating the problems with those reasons and the consequent problems with their behavior is nigh-impossible. The whole point of the rest of the spectrum is to distinguish other degrees of disagreement as even less bad than that: that it's not just "us" and an unreachable "them", but there's shades in between, who deserve to be treated differently than the "unreachable them", the latter of whom I don't even think are in principle unreachable or some kind of inherently evil, but just... really, really hard to get through to. — Pfhorrest

Here's the thing: What do you want to accomplish with debate or discussion?

Okay. But K is by no means typical. His Attack on Christendom rails against the banality of middle class Christianity. He thought the medievals has it right with their singularity of devotion. — Constance

At some point, I could recite by heart passages from De Imitatione Christi ... it seemed so right, so true ...

But I eventually decided that the banal middle-class Christians were better off in life, and that devotion is for losers.

I think and conclude you are either very young or out of your mind - non-exclusive "or." — tim wood

*sigh*

You already made the case for this earlier:

The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
— baker

At some point, yes. How not? — tim wood

You, too, are arguing for moral realism, or, in your case, moral egoism/narcissism.

If that's correct, then one could be omnipotent and have created nothing. Indeed, to insist otherwise would be once more to put restrictions on an omnipotent being.

So, God could have created everything if he had so wished, but whether he actually did so or not is an open question and it is not inconsistent with his being omnipotent that he created nothing at all. Or so I think at the moment..... — Bartricks

Just go read some Hindu theologies, and you'll have the whole gamut of options on this ...

Now, once more, a being who can do anything is not going to be bound by the laws of logic, for if they were they would not be able to do anything, but only those things that logic permits. — Bartricks

Are you able to see a square circle?
If a square circle would be presented to you, would you recognize it as such?

Truly, there is nothing that an imaginary God could not do, since there are no limits to the imagination! — Present awareness

Really? You can imagine square circles?

Jack, you're such a romantic, such an idealist ...

I want to know WHY people choose to go on. — Darkneos

Habit, inertia, hope, romanticism, idealism, revenge, apathy, momentum, to list a few, seem to be what keeps people going.

How much choice plays into this is hard to say. A person doesn't give birth to themselves (not even metaphorically); being aware of this, one, directly or indirectly acknowledges that one's existence and the possibility of one's existence are something that is beyond one's control.

We are neither entirely free, nor entirely bound.

The fact that one lives is not entirely up to oneself.

I find visciousness and vitriol a reason to stop all debate and is exactly the reason why discussions break down and become emotional fiat. I dont go into a discussion to stoke emnity like some troll. There should be some element of respect to keep the conversation from devolving into a brawl. I dont buy the idea that all arguments must get persinal and that using condescension and ad personum attacks count as anything resembling phosophical discourse. If you resort to that, then its poisoning the well right off the bat. Who wants that except a bunch of asshole types that get pleasure at complete conflict mode. — schopenhauer1

Not respecting a person doesn't automatically translate into being vicious toward them or that the conversation will devolve into a brawl. Why should it?

It's perfectly possible to be polite to someone whom one doesn't respect.

Most people are going to have kids and aren't remotely interested in whether it's ethical to do so or not. I mean, have you met people? — Bartricks

Please. Why do you want to add to the bad image that philosophy already has in culture at large, and rightfully so?

Apparently, you want to produce a valid argument but for which you foresee no practical application in the real world, even though the content of the argument has everything to do with the practical application in the real world.

If you'd be arguing for something like whether there is an unlimited number of simple substances from which the universe consists, or whether that number is limited, I wouldn't object. But you're taking a subject with enormous real-world implications and treating it as if it were trivial.

All along, you have been the one emphasizing the people at large don't want to live monkish lifestyles nor are they required to do so.

So what gives?

I think ownership of turf is the highest epistemic and moral principle.

What makes something true is how well it works. — Athena

Then threatening people with eternal hellfire and burning them at the stakes are good practices, for they work!

I do not know the first person who said "look for God in everyone", I just know doing so has a positive effect.

Yes, the Holy Inquisition were "looking for God in everyone" as well.

In the short term the Nazis were very successful, but today, Germany acknowledges the wrong done to Jews, and through education attempts to right the wrong and prevent it from happening again. The US occupies land held by indigenous people, and we have learned they were right about our planet being a living organism and that we need to protect ecosystems so they work as evolved to work.

But today is not yet the end of the story.
Take Nazism, for example: it's being rehabilitated. If the current trends are anything to go by, it might not take that much before it rises to power again.

The Romans conquered the Greeks but it is the Greeks who live on in our understanding of democracy and through the philosophy we share and science we develop.

Read again. Whose letters are you using to write this?

However, I can see Pfhorrest frustration maintaining respect for people — schopenhauer1

One doesn't actually need respect for people in such discussions. It's not like one intends to take them out for dinner afterwards or start a company together.

I don't see how that follows. Either the philosopher is deciding at random which ideas to give a fair shake, or he is deciding based on some factor. If the latter, its not prima facie impossible that such a factor might, by chance, never arise. — Isaac

Of course, but then the criterion "Giving all ideas a fair consideration, at one's discretion" becomes moot, and there is, for all practical intents and purposes, no difference anymore between a philosopher and an ideologue.

Either way, is there some minimum number of ideas then one must give a fair shake in order to count as a philosopher? If I give one idea fair shake in my teens, am I then set for life to be a dogmatic idealities and still be called a philosopher?

*hrmph*
"No true philosopher would refuse to give all ideas a fair shake."

Terms that denote racial, national, cultural, religious, or political identity are hard to pin down, they have multilayered meanings. The No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to them (just like it doesn't apply to the story from which it originates, which was a case of an equivocation -- 'person living in Scotland' vs. 'a good person').

It would be more profitable to try to delineate what makes for love of wisdom, as opposed to what a lover of wisdom would/should be like.

One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.

Again:
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

because if he can't do them then he can't do all things. If I can do everything you can do, but I can also draw square circles then I have more power than you. — Bartricks

The kind of power that gets people locked up in institutions with white padded cells.

Insisting that omnipotence should include being able to do the illogical is something 6-graders are impressed by.

Logic provides the limits for what is tenable. What some people present as the limits of God's power, are actually the limits of what is tenable, as provided by logic.

In the same way that it is impossible to draw a square circle, or a bachelor being married, or you being your own father, it is impossible for God to create a rock so heavy he can't lift.

God is defined as the greatest being, the biggest being etc.. So the concept of something being bigger than God (in this case, a rock) is a concept flawed from the onset. The way a "square circle" or a "married bachelor" are flawed from the onset.


And if you're going to make up your own definitions of "God" to begin with, and ignore the way God is defined in actual monotheistic religions, then why bother with the analysis at all? You're just arguing against a strawman.

It's the sledge-hammer of examples, but can you say holocaust? — tim wood

Can you say, "People who refuse to integrate into the socio-economic system in which they live and insist on being a minority thereby risk ostracism"?

Whatever the motivation - it's wrong by his own standards of truth telling. — yebiga

Well, if his own actual standard of truth telling is duplicity, then he can be called neither a hypocrite nor wrong ...

dispute his often cited claim that our Judeo-Christian heritage plays a central role in formulating the Western World's greatest ideal: the Individual. — yebiga

The individual is fundamental to Christianity, because without the individual, the whole prospect of the Judgment and of eternal heaven or eternal damnation fails. Christianity stands and falls with the prospect of the Judgment.

Yet, Peterson repeatedly makes this judeo-chrisitian claim and the claim is never challenged. In fact even atheists like Harris have failed to call him out on it.

Because they all need it and rely on it:
The Christians and Peterson for the purpose of judging and condemning people, and the New Atheists to claim their special status (and also for the purpose of judging and condemning people).

it is to prove that omnipotence is a quality which is not possible. — god must be atheist

What does drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have to do with omnipotence??
Why should drawing square circles or making superheavy rocks have any bearing on a being's power?

Then there is the commandment, look for God in everyone and "there but for the grace of God so I". — Athena

Who commanded that?
What makes this person our commander?

We are all in this together so it behooves us to make things as pleasant as we can. :wink: I will do what I can to get to kumbaya-happy.

While those with prejudice laugh at you and win in the battle of life.

My difficulty as well. The notion - any notion - of "ought" or "should" outside their correct grammatical usage, is imo fraught. And to suffer for Him? How does that work?

At bottom, if the Bible were just any book I would agree with you 100%. But for a Christian it is not just any book (and just what exactly for a Christian it is has changed over the past 200 years). I am a default Christian — tim wood

A Christian with questions and problems! How capital!

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
— baker
Their country, their rules.
— baker
Well, you have emptied both the ignorant barrel and the stupid barrel; just what are you working on? Are you suggesting that what is wrong on one side of an arbitrary line is right on the other? — tim wood

What are you talking about??

It's bizarre that a person goes to some foreign country and expects that the people there will play by this person's rules.

The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. — Kenosha Kid

Meet you there!

One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is talking about an "adoring crowd", but about a woman not being good enough to be loved. Not pretty enough, not rich enough, not successful enough to be loved by a man.

Someone who is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so, occasionally decides to do so. The people I listed above never do so, as a matter of principle; it's not an option for them.

There are ways for people to live harmoniously together: such as under tyrants; or when everyone knows their place and minds their own business. It doesn't make for a kumbaya-happy picture, of course, but it's harmonious.

Prejudice only begins to matter when an egalitarian social order is being imposed on people.

I do believe that overcoming prejudice is important, and is an ethical ideal, so I am asking to what extent can we reach this ideal, in order for people to live more harmoniously with all others? — Jack Cummins

Why do you believe that overcoming prejudice is important?

Who isn't? — Isaac

To be clear: You're looking for the principles by which love of wisdom proceeds, right?
How is a philosopher different from a non-philosopher?

A philosopher is willing to give all ideas a fair shake, if and when he decides to do so.
— baker
Who isn't? — Isaac

Some people are by default opposed to consider any other views than their own (some religious people are like that, some politicians, some psychologists, for example). So that's one group of people who aren't willing to give all ideas a fair shake, ever. Some of these people can rightly be considered ideologues, some are just so authoritarian that they don't allow anything else to exist in their proximity, some are extremely narcissistic.

It's my standard grudge against theists, it has nothing to do with Kierkegaard specifically.

Only if you value what's lost, in which case you'd opt in. — Kenosha Kid

Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster.