:up: I'll ponder whether I agree.

In any case, we do not - and cannot - go beyond appearance. — Manuel

I tend to agree but I guess that depends upon what we mean by appearance - in recent history we have certainly devised instruments that allow us to go beyond (ordinary) appearance and these tools seem to tell us that solid matter is almost entirely empty. And let's not get into quantum speculations.

And in a separate vein, is it not the case that people who claim to be enlightened are able to see beyond appearances, at least in part? Is this not a goal of mediation, etc? I'm not personally in the higher consciousness business but I am curious about the framing of these things.

It seems to me a matter of rather routine observations. — wonderer1

Well that makes sense if you believe in scientific realism - that there is a reality which can be understood and studied. This assumption isn't demonstrable by science but is taken as a foundational premise that makes scientific investigation possible.

Note, I am not saying science can't provide us with pragmatic and useful interventions in the world. I would just never mistake if for absolute truth. I think of science as more instrumental or pragmatic.

The desire to know the answers to ultimate metaphysical questions like “Who am I?”, “What is reality?”, and “What is the mind?” has been haunting me throughout my life. — LaymanThinker

Everyone is different. I don't think I have asked the quesion "Who am I?" It doesn't engage me, not does it seem answerable. Consciousness is indeed interesting but it requires significant expertise to understand, so I'm out. Reality? I'm not sure what that word refers to, apart from poetically. The notion of "reality" seems to me to be a secular equivalent of god - a fabled place for the buck to stop. I tend to think of philosophy as developing better quesions and more dynamic ways of conceptualizing human experience. One thing I do hold is whatever your philosophical beliefs and no matter how intricate your metaphysics is, on the ground nothing much changes. You still need to eat and piss and have meaningful relationships and open a door before walking into a room...

There is always going to be a metaphysical component in epistemology, but it's quite small. — Manuel

Doesn't epistemology rely upon metaphysical commitments for it to make sense? I'm not sure one can meaningfully talk about what we can know unless we have resovled what there is and somehow we continually end up in a tail chasing discussion about whether an external world exists outside our perception and what it is. Not to mention the quesion of time and space - are they products of the cognitive apparatus of human minds, or do they exist? Don't scientists subscribe to a massive metaphysical commitment, that reality can be understood?

I hear you, but I don't think what the founding fathers intended matters much to most - assuming they even if they know or understand the history. It might be argued that the "ordinary people" have been split into tribes and fed shit by media so that a shared understanding is no longer possible in a country too big and atomised to govern. The Left seem to be disorganised and banal and the Right seem to be marketing a version of certainty based upon anger.

:up:

The police and the military aren't immune to corruption, ideological or otherwise. — Arcane Sandwich

I'm not thinking corruption, I'm thinking more that they may be aligned with authoritarian visions for America and long to rid society of deviants.

Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler?

In that case, if law enforcement (both state and federal) can't deal with them for some reason (i.e., they are too numerous, so that they effectively overrun law enforcement) then, and perhaps only then, civilians are entirely justified in joining the fray and physically fighting them, even if it's to the death — Arcane Sandwich

Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group?

Of course, if there is a real national problem - failing economy, pressure from foreign powers, large influx of incompatible immigrants, severe weather events, a military defeat - the entire population is insecure and uncomfortable; the very underpinnings of the social structure come into question and the nation can be mobilized very quickly behind a promise of solutions. — Vera Mont

Yes - particularly if elements of the media have been priming people for decades - catastrophizing, intensifying differences, finding scapegoats, promoting hatreds, conflicts and unrest, etc.

:up:

Try to make it past the first sentence before finding an offending whole two words that "render the paper obsolete." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sorry CT, I have no view on the paper, I was just making a needless quip.

Interesting. Given the interest in nostalgia projects of every kind these days, along with a hatred of modernity, I wouldn't be surprised if Medieval critiques become fashionable again in some circles. :razz:

. Objects are recognised by us as kinds and types - this is where Kant comes in - and without that recognition, which is part of the process of apperception, then they would be nothing to us. Experience presents itself to us in the form of ideas. — Wayfarer

Very interesting responses. So am I right in thinking that for you idealism consists more of our cognitive apparatus making order our of a type of chaos (but there is some sort of "noumena" to begin with)? I don't read you as subscribing to the notion that there is only pure consciousness and nothing else, held by a ground-of-being style great mind, in which we are all participants or instantiations.

The biggest issue here is that, for whatever reason, we have some trouble (at least I do) in understanding how concretely existing things could be solely ideas. — Manuel

Yes, I think this is the key problem for most people in thinking this matter through.

The idealist might say that the idea of solid objects misses the point and remains stuck in a framework of metaphysical realism. In Johnson's case, the toe and the breaking themselves are a product of consciousness. I assume that the point of Berkeley is that the world of primary qualities does not exist independent of the mind. Solidity and the notion of 'hard matter' does not exist independently of mind and so kicking the rock, breaking a toe are mental experiences. It is how consciousness appears when experienced from our perspective. The solid stone and the foot's impact upon it are examples of the ability of consciousness to create a coherent world of experience - held together in the mind of God. Or in the case of Kastrup - we are all participants or aspects of a 'great mind' which is the source of all reality.

Hmm - I wish I could find the quotes by Kastrup - I'm sure he has written and stated in interviews that mind-at-large is "not metacognitive and is purely instinctive" and that morality is invented by humans to organise their preferred approach to manage power. But how one understands "humans" given what he says about our ontological status is complex.

This is how he differentiates himself from Berkeley - and it's highly ingenious. It's from his blog dated August 2015.

My formulation of idealism differs from Berkeley's subjective idealism in at least two points: (a) I argue for a single subject, explaining the apparent multiplicity of subjects as a top-down dissociative process. Berkeley never addressed this issue directly, implicitly assuming many subjects; and (b) I argue that the cognition of the non-dissociated aspect of mind-at-large ('God' in Berkeley's formulation) is not human-like, so it experiences the world in a manner incommensurable with human perception (details in this essay). In Berkeley's formulation, God perceives the world just as we do.

In other words, we are all dissociated alters of one great mind. We are all expressions of The One - a familiar spiritual axiom.

Yes - I think of Berkeley as somewhat similar in his conception to the contemporary thinker Bernardo Kastrup. Instead of a God, Kastrup posits a "Mind-at-Large" - an all-encompassing, transpersonal consciousness that serves as the source of reality. All of our experiences and notions of "the real" are participations in this one great mind. This seems to align with Paul Tillich's idea of the "ground of being."

Of course, not being a clergyman or bound by theological traditions, Kastrup has no need for a personal god. Mind-at-Large lacks intentionality, isn't a personal being, and doesn’t function as a source of morality or any of the other theological elements one might associate with divinity.

Just out of interest, do you interpret Carl Jung as an idealist in the way Kastrup does? It seems like it could offer a better explanation of the collective unconscious and shared human symbolism; something they never really clarified when I studied Jung.

And yet it is worth a glance at Paxton's definition. — Banno

Yes, that definition probably encompasses Trump fairly well. Reading Ian Kershaw's rise of Hitler (Hubris) there are some parallels with Turmp. It’s also worth looking at Ian Dunt’s Origin Story podcast on fascism too. Was Hitler even a fascist? Or is the word specific to one political Italian story? An issue with understanding fascism is that definitions tend to focus on methods rather than central ideas. The notion of fascism (like some other movements) seems to be without theorists or thinkers. It's an approach more than a clear doctrine.

I think I have largely come around to your way of looking at this.

For me, morality isn’t about labelling people as good or bad it’s about evaluating specific actions based on their inherent nature, intent, and consequences. This avoids the subjectivity that can arise from judging an actor’s character alone. — ZisKnow

Just for the sake of argument and to understanding context - why are you concerned about morality at all? When people start theorising about morality, I often wonder about purpose. Do you believe that if you don't think about the matter in some theoretical way you will cause harm?

I suspect that no one here has any capacity to influence the world's moral behaviour, just our own. Do you not find that acting from intuition is not enough? Can you provide examples of where your moral theorising has made a significant difference in your actions or assessments?

Yes, and I'm more than sympathetic to Evan's thesis and also the equally fascinating Michel Bitbol.

Sure, but as I say, I don't think this is simple or clear. And we are also talking about values and emotion (I guess pathos was a repetition?).

I was pretty sure this would wait until week two, but there it is.

Is it even possible for value, or affectivity or pathos, the pain of a sprained ankle, say, to occur without agency, one that is commensurate with the experience? Just a question. — Astrophel

I’m not sure. Those experiences may not be unified under a single foundational principle. Experience is interesting but contested space. I don’t have the expertise to determine what it means. But I do consider that values and emotions are products of contingent factors and seem to exist in relation to other factors - a web of interactions. What is at the centre? Is there even a centre? The problem with ideas like this is that they flow readily and may not connect to anything…

Participatory knowing shapes and is shaped by the interaction between the person and the cosmos, influencing one’s identity and sense of belonging. Vervaeke associates it with the 'flow state' and a heightened sense of unity (being one with.) — Wayfarer

I don't think I am convinced that this counts as knowing as such and is likely to be a symbolic connection or relationship emerging from contingent beliefs systems. Something doesn't have to be true for us to experince catharsis or other psychological satisfactions from it (ask any novelist).

But the point is, overcoming that sense of otherness or disconnection from the world is profoundly liberating in some fundamental way. — Wayfarer

I'm sympathetic of the idea of overcoming a sense of otherness or disconnection and that this can feel liberating, but it might be worth considering alternatives to framing the experience in such binary terms as 'connected vs. disconnected' or 'otherness vs. unity.' We could also think in terms of degrees, layers, or even shifting perspectives. For instance, rather than aiming to dissolve otherness, we could explore the tension between connection and separation and how we might understand ourselves and the world better through this interplay. Personally I don't usually look at the world as 'other' or as 'unity' I tend to suspend or bracket my judgement and am reasonably happy with ambivalence and paradox - rigid categories seem unnecessary.

You may be right. I’m not huge on politics, all I really know is never vote Liberal.

Though, I was surprised that you did agree with Joshs's thoughts about what constitutes the real. That was pretty out there. Maybe some of this does resonate with you.) — Astrophel

I have been particularly interested in @Joshs contributions and am often intrigued and/or sympathetic to the frames he brings here via post-structuralism and phenomenology. I have enjoyed bits of Evan Thompson's and Lee Braver's work.

But I have never pretended to be a philosopher or to have spent much time reading philosophy. In previous years philosophy didn’t capture my imagination. In the 1980's I read a lot of works available at the Theosophical Society, where I often hung out. I have no problem with Henry’s ‘duplicity of appearing’ as referenced. But I am not someone for whom the idea of god resonates. Whether that’s Paul Tillich’s ground of being or Alvin Plantinga’s theistic personalism.

:up: Thanks.

Yep. Well put. I'm not sure exactly what direction it will go but we'll know soon enough.

How does one open a room? — Astrophel

You're the expert. Tell me.

:up: Cool. As an atheist (by disposition) I remain intrigued by most things. I dislike closing doors. But I am also getting on in years, with limited time, set habits and a contented life, so I have bugger all reason to adjust my outlook on the basics. But the door is open.

Thank you. Possibly needs a thread - it's a fairly subtle line of thought.

Lastly, how do we know these things? — 180 Proof

I have often wondered about this. The usual answer seems rooted in the definition of classical theism, which is considered rationally coherent - God as the source of all goodness, the ground of being, the essence of divine simplicity, or something along those lines. Still, I suppose you and I might question whether this transcends mere assertion and, if so, how it can be known.

I wonder what an adaptation might look like made by a black director/auteur.

I’m a-readin’ The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn — praxis

Nice. I must have read it a dozen times over the years. I discovered this book at 10 and never looked back. Each time I re-read it (like The Great Gatsby) I find it sadder and more nuanced than the last. It's curious that for all the inadequate children's adaptations in movies and TV, no great director has ever tried to film this complex story from a more adult perspective.

Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else? — Relativist

Interesting quesion. Do you think there needs to be an end point? I tend to think of these ideas more as dispositions or methods, not goals, and these methods set about intervening in the world which is in continual change.

I love DBH. I'd love to have a chat with him. I missed him here in Melbourne last year. He was at a conference I could have attended but didn't see.

So nobody is really innocent! If you were completely innocent, then you wouldn't have been born in the first place. That's the bad news! But according to the Christians, the good news is, that you really don't belong to this world. — Wayfarer

Ha! It's what I call the prefect excuse. I don't buy it, but I know it has helped many people to sleep at night.

I don't think he trivialises suffering or says 'have faith that it'll be OK in the end!' — Wayfarer

I'm not sayign that he does this. And nor would I. Suffering is serious. Probably the most serious and formative matter I can think of.

But then life taught me that such realisations may be elusive - they can come and go without much apparent cause. There is also a lot of capacity for self-delusion in their pursuit. And the cultural context in which they were practiced and understood is vastly different to our own. — Wayfarer

Indeed, very interesting. You strike me as a sincere seeker of truth. I spent the first 18 years of my life among the extended Baptist community in inner Melbourne. Over the years, I’ve also spent time with Theosophists, mystics, Jesuits, Buddhists, and others. Additionally, I’ve engaged with secular humanists and the atheist community.

What I’ve observed is that people are largely the same - the fears, behaviors, and relationships don’t vary much, regardless of belief systems. However, some individuals are rare; they seem to possess an authenticity and integrity that transcend labels. These are the people I find interesting. Anyone can claim to be a theist or an atheist, but I don’t think labels mean all that much.

That couldn't be right, because if he didn't believe that his religion has a plausible attitude to suffering, surely he'd abandon the faith, which he hasn't. — Wayfarer

Have a look at Hart's recent interview on Youtube with Curt Jaimungal. He's pretty clear. It's a pretty staggering interview - perhaps because he is, these days, less cocky and self-regarding owing to his own sickness and pain. He has faith that there must be some kind of explanation for evil but he doesn't pretend to know what it is. I don't think it follows that people leave their faith just because it doesn't have all the answers. If that were the case most theists would be atheists by the morning. People generally believe that on balance secularism or theism makes more sense of the world they understand. The issue of suffering has nagged at Hart for decades. And he has certainly discussed that his faith is sometimes impacted by doubt. Isn't that how faith works?

I think Hart's views tell us that it's not so simple as theism having better responses or answers. If a theist and religious scholar as sophisticated as Hart comes to this conclusion, then the problem of suffering and evil can't be put down as an obtuse physicalist response.

As mentioned in an earlier comment, there is an unspoken convention that this is not something that can be considered in the secular context, as by definition, secular culture can't accomodate it. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure about that. What do you mean by 'accommodate'. David Bentley Hart has said (and recently at great length) that the problem of suffering (the inherent cruelty of this world) is atheism's best argument and that there is no answer to it in religion which he finds plausible. And isn't death the end of suffering for secular types? In the mean time, I have worked in palliative care a lot over time and I can say that theists seem way more disturbed and distressed by suffering than secular people I've met. Anecdotal I know but there it is.

Thank you but @Joshs is a serious player in this space and I am sure he has a response.

To test the claim of radical changeability in all objects of experience for everyone is to do two things:
1) it is to try to teach a believer in stable objectivity to see the underlying movement in supposedly static experience. How do you convince someone to see more than they see? Either they see it or they don't. Meanwhile, as relativist, you can leave them to their objectivism, knowing that it works for them, and isn't 'wrong' or 'untrue', just incomplete.
2)The believer in radical relativism must every moment of experience test their own perception(make it contestable) to see if this dynamism continues to appear very moment, everywhere for them. — Joshs

That sounds complicated and a lot like hard work. Is this exhausting to live by?

As a non-philosopher I find this hard to grasp or at least accept. Is it making too much out of too little change?

Even if meanings subtly shift from moment to moment, we can still reliably communicate, build technology, and make predictions about the world. This suggests that there’s a shared, stable structure to reality (note I am not sayign objective or certain) that doesn’t depend on momentary subjective fluctuations. For example, the laws of physics or the meaning of basic concepts like “cat” remain consistent enough for people across cultures and times to understand each other and cooperate. If everything were as fluid as this seems to suggest, such stability and shared understanding would seem not to be possible. What am I missing?

On the other side, there is the fear that those in the immanent frame have reduced the human good to mere consumption, the specter of consumerism and spiritual emptiness, or on the far side the fall into grave sin. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This would cover my sense of the world today, but oddly I get there more from an immanent frame. Like David Hart (although not sharing his faith), I see as much consumption, consumerism and spiritual emptiness coming from mainstream theism as from any secularists. But I don't think either frames are justifiable in as much as we don't really know, do we? I mean, can we even say for certain whether maths is invented or discovered, much less say anything sensible about the notion of a god ( I have more sympathy for an apophatic orientation). So for me neither frame really fits, but I do get what Taylor is getting at.

:up: