I guess there seems to be two things. Whether it is called such or not, there seems to be a sort of social level morality being invoked, right (i.e., what societies ought or ought not do)? However, at the same time, societies are made up of individuals, and if they do not value this social morality and it has no claim on them then how does it apply? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I think this is a significant point. How I behave is of less significance than how a society behaves. The law seems to exist because individual morality doesn't help us keep the community safe or protected.

Morality, as I understand it, applies to my judgments of my own behavior. How do I decide how to behave? — T Clark

Do you have a way of deciding whether a government is behaving with appropriate judgment or within an appropriate ethical frame? How does your 'individualist' approach impact upon issues like abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, welfare for poor people, etc.

Yes. I guess I wasn't being meta enough.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - William Shakespeare, Act 2, Scene 2, "Hamlet".

Anyhow, I believe the correct response here is: "There are more things in heaven and earth... than are dreamt of in your philosophy" - William Shakespeare, Act 1, Scene 5, "Hamlet". :smile: — Count Timothy von Icarus

The problem with these frequently cited quotes is that they are often treated as a kind of blank check, used to justify all sorts of reckless or extreme views.

Here’s how I see it - this is from Ziporyn’s translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more.

This is how Emerson put it in “Self-Reliance.”

No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition, as if every thing were titular and ephemeral but he. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand those quotes. If they're just saying that we make our choices based on our own conscience then we are bound to admit that that includes Pol Pot and doesn't get us very far in deciding what is right or wrong in society. That said, I also tend to act and not reflect on what is right. I simply follow my disposition and rarely need to think things through. But given that I am situated within a specific culture, society, time, and place, none of my positions are particularly original, intuitive, or brave.

Could there be a third way? I'm thinking that everyone has the capacity to be a kind of scientist of their own experince, they experiment and test as they go, using lived experince to affirm or modify choices. More of a practice based philosophical approach.

Why isn't veganism legally mandatory in all countries? — Truth Seeker

Because not enough people care about the welfare of animals, and eating meat is deeply embedded in our culture. The moral conversations of many cultures haven't taken this matter seriously as yet.

You’re understanding my point back to front. Across ethical systems, a common theme is the prevention of harm. This does not imply that every possible instance of harm is recognized or codified into the moral principles of a culture. Ethical systems are selective, shaped by historical, social, and practical considerations. Some harms may go unnoticed or be considered acceptable in certain contexts, while others are amplified as morally significant.

Yes, on the face of it, describing reality with a single system does seem to be far fetched, perhaps even absurd. But then, this would depend on one's understanding of reality - an ambiguous notion it would seem - as well as one's understanding of a system - which is exactly the question contemplated by this discussion - also, it would seem, an ambiguous notion. — Pieter R van Wyk

I was just describing something I’ve seen. I don’t think it’s a particularly important point. Whether someone is a monomaniac or not hardly matters. We can always ignore them. Who knows, one of them may eventually turn out to be Kant.

If anybody has any ethical questions, they can just ask me. — frank

Yep, that's an option too.

Well this is old one isn't it? Is morality objective or subjective or, in fact, intersubjective? We come to this on the forum every few weeks or months it seems to me.

How do we decide what should be legal and what should be illegal? — Truth Seeker

For my money, I don’t think we decide questions of legality by appealing to some eternal moral law written into the fabric of the universe. Instead, we put together compromises that let us get along with one another while pursuing our different projects. Hence the public conversation about morality which result in law reform and an evolution of what is right and wrong over time.

So it seems that the line between legal and illegal is not discovered, it’s negotiated. What matters isn’t whether a law corresponds to some deep moral truth, but whether it works well enough for the purposes of reducing cruelty, minimising conflict, and keeping social life manageable. So the foundation of most moral systems seems to be preventing harm and promoting wellbeing. We can certainly decide not to do this and see what happens.

Given humans are a social species and getting on with each other has been the source of our strength and success (such as they are) it’s clear to see how not killing, not stealing, not lying and not assaulting others works to all our advantages. But there are always situations where even these prohibitions may not be useful.

Many people are driven by prejudices. — Astorre

One person’s prejudice is another’s insight.

I agree with you. In this sense, philosophy is a dude who sits in your head and criticizes you. In psychology, this is called self-reflection (if I'm not mistaken). — Astorre

I think it’s often called critical reflection or in nursing, teaching and social work, reflective practice.

But what is often forgotten here is that critical practice also acknowledges strengths: what works, what is possible given limitations and what is successful. Rather than pointing out a need for change or highlighting omissions or flaws, it can actually embolden and be an affirmation of your choices and approaches.

Nice try, I like this and I can see your reasoning but I think it's an inadequate read of what I said.

I wrote :-

probably better understood — Tom Storm

There’s nuance here. I’m not claiming to have fully solved fundamental questions of reality, nor have I developed a system. I haven’t claimed to have understood the nature of reality, either. In fact, I’m questioning whether 'reality' is even a useful term and provided soem reasons. What I have suggested is a provisional orientation, perhaps a soft form of postmodernism that remains open to revision. Which is why I also wrote:

...I don’t rule out possibilities, — Tom Storm

At any rate, the point we're discussing is comprehensive explanations and system-building where there's a claim made that the precise nature of reality has been described, not whether people can hold certain pragmatic presuppositions or tendencies in their everyday lives. What defines a 'crank' (in most instances like this) I would say is the obsession with elaborate system building to 'resolve' age old questions, not the simple act of having opinions or beliefs.

Are you saying:

that it is impossible to understand this thing we humans named reality?
that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

As you'll note I said :-

it's usually the hallmark — Tom Storm

This does not contain any absolutist pronouncements like the two dot points you’ve provided.

But if I treat these as follow-up questions, I would say that 'reality' is not something waiting to be uncovered but a word we use in shifting contexts to describe what we take to be fundamental. I am not inclined to affirm systems that present themselves as having secured the essence of what is, since what we call reality for me is probably better understood as a contingent product of language, culture, and historically situated practices rather than the disclosure of some underlying foundation.

In my experience, there is always someone on the periphery, doggedly trying to describe reality and reconcile all myths and principles into a single system. They invariably believe themselves misunderstood, refusing to accept that others regard them as cranks.

A fine literary satire of this familiar type was provided by a favourite English writer, George Eliot. In Middlemarch she created the elderly pedant Mr. Casaubon, forever labouring over his great tome, The Key to All Mythologies.

that only cranks and monomaniacs can understand this thing we humans named reality? — Pieter R van Wyk

Maybe that would be better restated as, "only cranks and monomaniacs believe they can undertand reality."

In any case, I don’t rule out possibilities, but I tend to see the idea of “uncovering reality” as an old-fashioned, romantic notion whose prospects are, at the very least, uncertain.

Nice quote and exactly what I was thinking of.

Well, one interesting thing is that back when the primary goal of philosophical education was existential transformation instead of intellectual specialization (i.e., for most of pre-modern though, and for much Eastern philosophy) it was also taught very differently. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I hadn't thought of it in terms of existential transformation but I guess that works. There does seem to be a kind of bifurcation between the problem solvers and the dreamers - for want of better terms. And no doubt there's overlap.

Emotion crises arise as indications that the patterns we relied on are brining to fail us, and we either have to construct our world to a small and smaller circle of what we can cope with, or begin the process of re-organizing our system of constructs. — Joshs

Yes. Good point.

Whenever someone claims that so and so’s thinking had a life-changing effect on them, I suspect that scratching beneath the surface will reveal such a readiness to be transformed. — Joshs

Yes, that likely to be accurate.

Thanks.

Wittgenstein said something similar: "Don't for heaven's sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense." — Janus

:up: Nice.

"If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise" William Blake — Janus

Is this a paradoxical way of saying practice makes perfect?

I guess it's helpful for us to distinguish a fool from a 'simpleton'. In as much as a fool may learn and acquire knowledge by learning from mistakes, but a simpleton may have cognitive limitations. I think there's an innocence in foolishness.

It seems significantly less common in modern philosophy, although there are examples such as Pascal. It's a sort of "trope" in Eastern thought too, the life of the Buddha being a paradigmatic example. But, just because these are tropes and find their way into hagiography, doesn't mean they aren't real; we do have first hand biographical accounts as well. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, I was thinking about this kind of thing earlier. I was also considering the difference between attaining ‘enlightenment’ (for want of a better term) and, in the case of Marxists or Muslims, being radicalised.

But I was thinking less ambitiously: more like an understanding about the nature of time, or a perspective offered by phenomenology, and how, even on a smaller scale, such realizations might completely recalibrate one’s way of relating to the world and its “problems.” Not enlightenment, radicalisation, or conversion to a faith, but rather (damn, I’ll have to use the phrase) a paradigm shift. Perhaps 'realization' is the better word.

I have a romantic notion of philosophy as potentially being able to provide this kind of psychological or experiential transformation, not just the lifeless pursuit of analysis and cold reasoning, but a new way of seeing that enlarges our experience in some way. Yet such a description feels rather tendentious, soft and poetic.

The mysterious concept of ‘temperament’ arises out of creating artificially separated categories out of learning , cognition and affectivity. — Joshs

Cool. So can we think of temperament as habitual patterns of sense making? I’m assuming you include in temperament people’s preferences for order, simplicity, chaos, or whatever…

We don’t need Nietzsche and Heidegger in order to do philosophy, since we are already formulating, testing and revising our own philosophical systems all the time. — Joshs

Of course, but in most cases it often seems to take the contributions of others to promote a significant shift in our thinking. Although I’m sure break through moments can also happen from life events. But what does it mean to read Wittgenstein or Heidegger and see the world radically anew? From what you say above, is it correct to think you might define philosophy as an act of sense making?

Wisdom always sounds like a good thing to have. But really, it is just some set of habits that have evolved within a society's own game of life. They only have to be pragmatically effective – optimised enough to keep the whole social game going. There is nothing transcendent about either cleverness or wisdom. — apokrisis

That has a sort of Rorty-like feel to it. The contingency of wisdom as part of an evolving vocabulary.

Note the reduction of wisdom to mere cleverness. Something has gone astray. — Banno

There’s something a bit cheap and glib about mere cleverness, which seems to locate wisdom closer to nous and virtue. Perhaps there’s moral cleverness?

If you have in mind people like us and people adjacent to us, then we are what, 5% of the population at very best? — Manuel

Never thought about it. I’m not sure if I should be concerned or amused by this figure,

Most people - even in optimal conditions - don't care enough about these issues. Heck even interest in science is low for what I would like it to be, but philosophy today? That's tough. — Manuel

I wonder if there are some good stats on this. I mentioned philosophy at work a couple of times and people made it clear they thought it was bullshit. Mind you this is a crowd interested in critical theory so go figure.

Another thing is being a follower of Derrida or Lacan, that exists, is relatively small, but probably not good for thinking, imo. — Manuel

Yes, all the smart young kids of my era were cheerfully fixated with deconstruction in the 1980’s. I never had the temperament to make it through the texts. They were so turgid and took time from women and booze.

I forget exactly where, I think it's in a few places, Plato describes being educated as primarily "desiring what is truly worthy/good and despising what is truly unworthy/bad." He says that a formally educated, wealthy person might be able to give more sophisticated answers as to why something is desirable or undesirable, but that this is ancillary to being truly "educated." If the more sophisticated person is nonetheless not properly oriented/cultivated such as to desire the good and abhor evil, then they are in an important sense uneducated (unformed); whereas the unsophisticated person is educated, although lacking in sophistication. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Which is a reasonable point.

But education wouldn't quite be the same thing as wisdom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Intuitively that seems right too.

Certain understandings of wisdom, then, rest on the ability to know or intuit the Good, or on union with God, with the source of this wisdom rooted in a transcendent origin.

Not that it's impossible to have someone change the way you view things, it just looks to be very rare. — Manuel

Which is curious, if true.

I'm pretty sure people can be 'radicalised' by philosophy. I’ve certainly met those who 'converted' to idealism or became obsessed with Heidegger’s model of time, to the point where perpetually excited and they would talk about nothing else. And then there are those who abandoned their Islamic or Christian faith and became bores about secular philosophy instead.

You would think that if philosophy truly had the power to lift us beyond convention and common sense, it would amount to a profoundly mind-bending and transformative experience for many people.

That’s very true. :grin:

Isn’t it all just stories and myths, with some proving more useful than others depending on the circumstances? I don’t begin with the idea that we ever stumble onto some final truth, only that we keep finding frames or descriptions that serve us better for the purposes at hand. Or something like this.

:up:

I think life difficulties are much more defined or informed by one's temperament more than what some intelligent person said back in the day. — Manuel

Well said. A perspective people tend not to consider as they seem to attribute everything to learning and discernment.

You can gain perspective and even insight in philosophy, but I don't think it will change the way you face problems, not unlike thinking that studying psychology will let you read other people's minds (it won't). — Manuel

That's worth thinking about.

I briefly studied philosophy at university. My tutor once said something like, no one he had ever met was truly changed by philosophy; it only served to elaborate their preconceptions and biases.

I keep wondering if there are transformational understandings about time and self and being and truth and reality that would open up and utterly change one. Surely that's the promise of thinkers like Nietzsche and Heidegger...

But this is invariably met with the objection, what do you mean by 'higher'? Higher, according to whom? (Just wait!) This is because any such values are generally expected to be matters of individual conscience - the individual being the arbiter of value on modern culture. — Wayfarer

Perhaps. But value is also construed in postmodern theory through intersubjective agreement, which seems to be as close to objectivity as we can get. But agreement remains contingent and subject to linguistic and cultural practices.

Yeah, I suppose the way we think these days may indeed create problems, but maybe that’s the price of debunking myths and sacred cows. It could be that a more pragmatic and justifiable orientation naturally brings instability, especially during transitional periods, which might last for centuries. How would we know?

Because, in most situations, even a fool can see when something is a failure. You don’t even need to know what success is. But as I already said, very few people are 100% foolish.
— Tom Storm
This answer is neither here nor there. Fools by definition is someone who acts unwisely and gets unwise results. — L'éléphant

I shouldn't have written fool. My mistake. We aren't actually talking about fools as such. I've been careless in language. We are talking about recognising our foolishness and developing wisdom. As I said before no one (or very few) is a complete fool. Most of us have enough nous to tell the differnce between what works and what doesn't. If you disagree with that then we hold different views about people. Which means we can move on.

From my own experience, sometimes my intuition was right and sometimes wrong, so to me, this definition of intuition is problematic. I have no idea what wisdom may refer to at all. — MoK

I was wondering if anyone would bring some wisdom skepticism to the table. Is wisdom merely difficult to define, or does it, perhaps, not exist?

In terms of contemporary usage, I don't see appeals to wisdom (as a specific concept) in general that often. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's an interesting point and I would agree.

A key idea is that wisdom (and thus virtue) is sought for its own sake, being not mainly about making "good choices" in a pragmatic sense (as the goal of wisdom anyhow), but about an intellectual joy that is achieved through contemplation that itself makes one a "good (just) person," but which also leads to a good (happy) life, to joyous action (as opposed to the suffering brought on by vice). Whereas if wisdom is primarily about making good pragmatic choices, then it really is more of a means than an end. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's an element no one seems to have drawn out so far. Thanks.

How important do we think wisdom is in our lives, and do we agree with contemporary thinkers like John Vervaeke that we “suffer a wisdom famine in the West”?

I would imagine this is a quite common sentiment amongst perennialists or fans of particular Eastern or historic Western wisdom traditions. And this makes a certain sort of sense since, if one considers them important (or the sort of classical liberal arts education) then the fact that they are not generally taught will be something in need of change. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: :up:

The drive for diversity has not tended to mean teaching other historical traditions either (e.g., the big Islamic philosophers). For philosophy and broader social theory, the post-moderns, liberals, and to lesser extent the Marxists, really dominate. But, for most perrenialists (and I do think they are right here), these are in key respects much more similar to each other than they are to any of the older traditions. So, even for people not committed to any particular tradition, there appears to be a missing diversity element that allows for unchallenged assumptions or a sort of conceptual blindness. This need not even be in alarmist terms. It's simply "hard to get" without any sort of grounding, and that grounding is missing. — Count Timothy von Icarus

There's an entire thread in this, isn't there?

That’s a very nicely written perspective.

You've got a fine house and you've completely forgotten what the point of a house is. — Srap Tasmaner

I particularly like this insight.

My two bits from a 2021 thread ...
https — 180 Proof

I forgot about that great response. Thanks!

Okay so you're just supporting what I said earlier. How do you know what mistakes are if not by knowing what success is. — L'éléphant

Because, in most situations, even a fool can see when something is a failure. You don’t even need to know what success is. But as I already said, very few people are 100% foolish.

One can recognize that events aren't meeting expectations and recognize that beliefs leading to those expectations were somehow mistaken. It's not obvious to me how "knowing what success is" is necessary to knowing what mistakes are. — wonderer1

Agree.

You could only learn from the foolish if you know the difference. — L'éléphant

Not always. If you watch someone follow a course of action and see the consequences, you also learn what works and what does not. In some cases you will gradually build up wisdom around conduct, goal setting and approaches. In fact, I have learned more from watching mistakes and making them than I ever have from success. And no one is tabula rasa. Most of us have a smattering of wisdom alongside our foolishness. The trick, perhaps is to fan it carefully, the way a spark can be nurtured into a roaring fire.

- the conviction that one is choosing the best answer when in truth one is imposing one solution amongst many. That imposition is the ethical aspect. — Banno

Got ya. Government in a nutshell.

No, I'm seeing education as not just schooling and formal instruction. — L'éléphant

:up:

to me means no formal schooling and/or no instruction from the wise people. — L'éléphant

I wonder if it is possible to become wise by learning from the foolish? After all, with discernment, watching a fool and what happens to them can be very instructive in learning what not to do.

My Masters thesis was on organisations making decisions despite their being undecidable. But only the good undecidable decisions are wise... — Banno

Oh, say some more about that - context perhaps. Are you saying that operational pragmatism means having to make decisions whether the matter is decidable or not? I've certainly been there.

Indeed. When I was young, in the 1980's, there was a sequel to this via the New Age movement which had good and bad aspects to it. It's where I first read Alan Watts. I was very interested in the theosophical movement and history and spent a lot of time around devotees of Gurdjieff, Joseph Campbell, Krishnamurti, Gurumayi Chidvilasananda, and others. If you find a clique, there's no shortage of conversation and information swapping. I think counterculture or working to get 'behind appearances' is a very seductive area of interest.

At the time, the nearest thing I could find in Western culture to the enlightenment I was seeking was via the Gnostics. — Wayfarer

Did you pursue this line very much? There was a significant Gnostic/Jung/Campbell nexus in the 1980's.

It would be difficult for me to assess in your place what exactly is minimizing suffering: letting someone commit suicide or letting someone live :grin: — Astorre

The default position is that it is better to live. But there are situations where death might be preferable; terminal illness being an obvious example. Generally, people are quite relieved not to have completed their self-harm. They often recognize that their desperation was situational and could be overcome. People who are extremely serious about suicide don't generally tell others and just go do it.

Thought experiment: You walk into a room where a stranger is about to commit suicide. What do you do? — Astorre

It happens a lot. Or did. I work in psychosocial services which assists people who are experiencing mental ill health and addiction (amongst other things). I have provided suicide interventions many times.

Why do I work in this area? I tend to value approaches which minimise suffering and promote flourishing. Part of me is a simple-minded utilitarian.

Have you ever felt the urge to take stock of your own paradigm? — Astorre

I don’t have a deliberate paradigm; I have more of a disposition. I’m unsure what I think about many issues and tend to just intuit my way through them. I’m open to many alternative approaches. I'm quite happy with 'I don't know' as an answer. I'd like to know more about phenomenology - but I lack time and find it hard to get a useful reading from complicated texts.

Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how? — Astorre

I’ve never paid much attention to philosophy, but I do find it interesting. I navigate most of life by intuition, rarely reflecting or theorizing and this works pretty well. I’m at ease with being, to a significant degree, an expression of the values of my time.

​Ethics in Action: How do you personally resolve ethical contradictions that arise in your everyday life? — Astorre

I lean toward relativism. I see morality as contingent, a code of conduct shaped by history and culture that pragmatically helps organize people and power relations. I can't think of a time I faced an ethical contradiction. I mostly just act. No doubt I sometimes make mistakes and poor choices, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

​Coping with Life's Challenges: Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety? — Astorre

I take things as they come and expect nothing. I've generally found negotiating life and other people to be fairly pleasant and straight forward. But I recognize that I have been lucky. If existential anxiety is understood as a fear of death or a festering over meaning in the face of life’s absurdity, I am largely untouched by this. I am at peace with the possibility of dying tomorrow, should it occur.

​Balancing Depth and Superficiality: How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others? — Astorre

It’s often me who’s the superficial one. I do tend to avoid theorists and people who insist on turning every conversation into a showcase of their reading. They are often dull and tend to narcissism. That said I find most people interesting and enjoy almost any kind of free flowing conversation. I don't divide the world of other people into the superficial and the profound, I'm more concerned with people who treat others respectfully.

There's an issue I don't think has been raised yet: "system" often carries a connotation of rigidity, though we can certainly point to systems that are flexible and adaptive. My point is, it's always a question with systems.

In your semantic terms, I was thinking about the use of the phrase "the System" (capital S) in the 60s and 70s counterculture. The imputation was of a particular kind of rigidity, a rigidity that extended to this semantic level. Thus the System was thought to see everything in terms of wealth and power and status, and to be blind to, say, art and feeling, on the one hand, or injustice and suffering, on the other. There were categories of no use to the System, and so it did not recognize them at all. You get the idea. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed, in some ways a system might also be seen as a heuristic, a simplifying device that helps us navigate complexity, but it can just as readily function as a framework, or even as a symbolic stand-in for realities that remain intricate and puzzling.

Many systems seem designed to make complex things easier to organize and understand, to bring coherence to chaos, but in doing so they may leave out important elements or even distort the picture. As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac.

Do you agree? — Banno

Well, here's the thing. Aren't there folk who are wise in some areas and dunces in others? Or does 'proper' wisdom need to be all encompassing?

I spent yesterday at a Voluntary Assisted Dying conference, and came away with an overwhelming belief that VAD is a moral good; one that was have been impossible to implement until recently. — Banno

Agree. I recently had an acquaintance put this into practice. It was a good thing.