A Modernist artwork may be defined as any object real or imagined that has no utilitarian purpose that has been observed or thought about by a human as an aesthetic, which is about a sense of order within complexity. — RussellA

Is this right? Can't utilitarian objects also be understood as art? Think of works by William Morris, for example, or Greek Attic vases. And then there’s conceptual art.

The transition from traditional media to social media is not a way out of a vicious circle, but simply a change of players. — Astorre

I wasn't saying it was a way out, only that it was a new dimension. I don't know what vicious circle you're referring to.

I propose a thought experiment that allows you to see this mechanism in action:
1. Take any news.
2. "Clean" all emotions from it, leaving only a naked fact.
3. Compare how the same fact is presented in different sources: in the official media, among independent bloggers, in the opposition media. — Astorre

I'm not sure what this establishes. It's well known that different people and outlets cover things differently, even journalists from the same publication might take different angles. Audiences tend to select the outlets that match their values. Which is why old, scared people tend to watch Murdoch's stuff.

I will not refer to specific facts in specific sources, because I can very easily hurt someone's feelings. I propose a focus on the idea itself, leaving the experienced approach to its own discretion — Astorre

I can't really see what you mean unless you provide an example. What is a big lie? I can see lots of little lies - a web of intersecting nonsense and propaganda, but that's kind of how yellow journalism has often functioned throughout its history from Lord Beaverbrook to Hearst to Pulitzer to Murdoch.

I would think many of the inconsistencies in long term religions often arise from trying to square beliefs from different eras cohesively. — MrLiminal

Good point.

I have seen some interpretations of hell as being bad not as a punishment so much as the natural state of being separated from God and his love/will, and because God is perfect, he cannot interact with imperfect beings directly, hence the necessity of Jesus as a sacrificial intermediary. In that reading, I think it's possible to see similarities, but perhaps I'm reaching. — MrLiminal

As society becomes more concerned with parity and social justice, ideas about God also tend to become less severe and more inclusive. That’s why some Western churches now fly the rainbow flag of diversity, while in less diverse and more rigid societies (generally Muslim), people are still executed for being gay based on religion.

It strikes me as odd that some have built significant narratives about God's intentions and actions, along with the functions of hell and punishment even though we’ve yet to establish whether any god exists, and if so, which one.

What do you think—does this mechanism still hold today? Have you noticed how emotions from news shape your opinions? And is it even possible to resist this influence in an era of information overload? — Astorre

I don’t follow the news closely. In my circle, news stopped being taken seriously in the 1990s. These days, most of us just read up on issues that interest us and occasionally check news sites like the BBC or Al Jazeera. Do you think it's more likely that social media is the bigger issue?

People are more likely to believe a big lie than a small one. This aligns with their nature. They know they might lie about trivial things, but a massive lie? They’d hesitate to go that far. A big lie doesn’t even occur to them, so they can’t imagine someone else being capable of such shameless distortion of facts — Astorre

Hitler obviously said something like this, but is it accurate? What is an example of a “big lie” today that people widely believe? There are certainly narratives manufactured for certain stakeholders. Is society too atomized these days for a 'big lie' to be feasible?

The Catholic Church teaches that God Almighty came down from heaven to save us... from His own wrath... by allowing Himself to be tortured to death. And apparently this strategy worked in spite of the fact that he didn't actually die (people saw him walking around three days later), and most people didn't get saved. — frank

It’s a pretty absurd story and hard to make sense of unless you buy into it emotionally and overlook its incoherance. I guess this is why many freethinkers often describe the New Testament as: “God sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself, to protect us from the rules He Himself made.”

Of course, ritual sacrifice is a big element in most religions because it’s so dramatic and attention grabbing. It lends itself to great slogans like this from John - “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son."

the inconsistencies you have noted do not matter to those who believe.

Part of the reason is that they have been taught that belief is of greater import that consistency.

It follows that any argument you might offer is irrelevant, becasue what is at stake is not rational. — Banno

Indeed, they often find extraordinarily complex and implausible ways to justify doctrine. It’s hard work trying to make human sense out of myth.

So far, so good.

Hey, I may need some pointers on the difference between relativism and anti-realism.

I'm assuming the anti-realist says something like: "Murder isn’t wrong in any objective sense; saying it’s wrong is just an expression of personal preference or emotion."

Whereas the relativist says: "Murder is wrong according to contingent community standards, such as local values, cultural norms: views about harm and wellbeing, but those standards aren’t universally binding."

Both views agree that morality is something humans create through their agreements or social practices, right

Great, thanks for the clarification. Food for thought.

I would suggest keeping relativism and anti-realism separate. They are two distinct things. Almost every thinker is a relativist and contextualist to some degrees (as respects both truth and values). If you're a child's parent, it's good to scoop them up if they have fallen and start to cry. If you're a stranger, not so much. The appropriateness of the action depends on the context. Likewise, it might be extremely rude, and thus judged to be bad, not to bow to one's elders in some cultural setting, but not in another culture. Platonism, or Christian and Islamic "Neoplatonism," had no real issues with this sort of relativism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nicely put.

I'd question if this even still "anti-realism?" You seem to be assuming that realism = some sort of naive two worlds Platonism, else it is anti-realism. But that's not how I'm using the term, nor how it is usually used. Normally, it means there is no truth as to values (sometimes caveated to "moral values.") To call values emergent, isn't to say they aren't real. Although, if one wants to claim that they emerge from culture and language, this would seem to imply that nothing good or bad can ever happen to non-human animals, which seems false. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, I was assuming, from your posts, that you argue from God or Platonism.

My view is that relativist can argue that values are real - but they are contingent. For the theist, this is generally not good enough.

a bias for reason, mathematics, and freedom from constraint - are human values just as much as "Goodness, Beauty (and sometimes Truth)" are. — T Clark

Nice. :up:

The issue for some is that goodness, truth and beauty emanate from God; are a reflection of God's nature. Take them away and quesions emerge.

-Nothing is good or bad. It's not bad for a man to get hit by a bus, nor is it bad for a rat to eat rat poison. Serial killers and child molesters are ultimately no worse (nor any better) than saints. The cosmos is meaningless and valueless, and values a sort of illusion. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This fairly common response seems to me to be a misread of relativism. Or perhaps it's a read of naive relativism.

There may well be no objective values written into the structure of the cosmos. Our universe doesn't protest when a baby dies, nor does it celebrate when a theist shows mercy towards an enemy. But this doesn't mean that "nothing is good or bad" in any meaningful sense. It means that good and bad are creations, let's call them emergent, intersubjective, historical, biological, cultural, and personal. They are not illusions, but human projections of experience, language, a social conversation, and biological response. Do we need more than this?

Your example is a man being hit by a bus. From the perspective of the cosmos, it is likely irrelevant. But from the standpoint of community, family, a loved one, it's a tragedy and a source of legitimate sorrow. We are social animals and we experince pain and loss. This doesn’t become nothing simply because it lacks metaphysical grounding of some kind. The fact that it's relative doesn't make it meaningless.

Likewise, the difference between a serial killer and a saint isn't a metaphysical one, but that doesn't make it trivial. The values by which we differentiate them are based on shared human concerns: suffering, trauma, fear or flourishing, trust, and love. These values vary across cultures and time, sure, but they're not arbitrary. They arise from how we are embedded in the world and with one another.

A relativist doesn’t have to deny that moral language is of use in our world: they just deny that it reflects some absolute, God’s-eye-view or Platonic realm of moral truth.

Very interesting observations. Thanks.

When asked why she was such a recluse, she said for her, just being here is enough. — Astrophel

Nice. I wish more people felt similarly - we wouldn't have a world ruined by tourism. A crass interpretation of her words but there it is...

Not that I am going to go out and read all of his works, but I suspect the ground of his thinking goes much deeper this classical theism — Astrophel

I'm sure of that. Hart is an insatiable reader (which seems to match his seemingly insatiable intake of food). What is he missing, I wonder?

OTOH, Heidegger's Being and Time must be read. Just saying. It is frankly profound and opens the door to all later Heidegger, and post Heideggerian/neo Husserlian responses. Not just arguments. — Astrophel

Yes, you're not the only person to suggest this. I doubt I'd be able to get a useful reading of Heidegger, even if I could endure the dense and technical language. I simply don't have the passion or ability to pursue such literature.

Phenomenology begins with description of the phenomenological "world" that is presupposed by ordinary existence, and the former is not the familiar world, and so one has to make the move to phenomenological discovery, but what this IS depends on the individual. Some find this the philosophical medium of religious affirmation, while others like Heidegger, see it as an analysis of the finitude of our being (though Heidegger said he never really left the church). — Astrophel

The finitude of human life occurred to me when I was a child, and a sense of its evanescence has never really left me.

Not wanting to start anything crass, but on the subject of moral clarity, what do you make of Heidegger's interest in Nazism - did his philosophy not assist him is seeing this clearly?

Thanks again.

Whenever I see an old pile like that all I can think of is how hard it would be to heat the bloody place! Probably my latent Calvinism.

My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. — Patterner

More importantly, from my perspective, you (the one doing the looking) are different too. The expectations, beliefs, aesthetic impulses, and preferences that are awakened or activated by different phenomena and contexts shape what you see. And what you think you see. It’s not just the object that changes, but the subject who encounters it. 'The looking' is nothing without the rest of our experince. Or something like that.

Emmanuel Kant said that "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind." So, why expect religions to be better than anything else? — BC

Hmm. We might reasonably expect religion to be better, morally or existentially, than other human pursuits. After all, unlike sales, filmmaking, car manufacturing, or blacksmithing, religion claims to orient itself around the ultimate concern, divine guidance, and the pursuit of goodness. If it doesn’t offer something deeper than any other human activity, then one may as well ask, what's the point? :razz:

Philosophers argue only. They do not yield enough to listen, understand, because this is mostly not publishable. — Astrophel

This may be part of the reason I was never much fascinated by philosophy. Arguments don't excite me much, and the experience of living teaches us enough, if we pay attention.

Still, I cannot understand why the likes of Critchley and Rorty remain metaphysical nihilists, while someone like Hart, profoundly well read, makes the Kierkegaardian "movement" of affirmation. I guess the distance between us is too great. — Astrophel

I think it's dispositional. As much as I find Hart fascinating and intelligent, I find his beliefs to be cloying and unsatisfying. The notion of the metaphysical God of classical theism doesn't engage me. When it comes to beliefs, like the people we love, we can’t help what we’re attracted to.

. As I see it, the next step is understanding that one's individual consciousness is not a localized event only, though. — Astrophel

Are you suggesting idealism?

What is next is Michel Henry's Essence of Manifestation. — Astrophel

Our inner experience is the ground of reality. On this point, from what little I’ve gleaned, I see no reason to disagree. It’s easy to argue that modern life reduces everything to consumerism, surface values, and the grey managerial-technocratic lens through which most Western governments operate. But I’m curious: what practical steps might this way of thinking actually lead to? Life is more than sitting in a room reading and pondering ineffables. What does one do?

There seem to be religious yearnings in the frame you have presented. In relation to Caputo one might hold that his weaving of postmodern ideas back into the religion of his upbringing has an inevitability about it. Is his experince similar to yours? It often seems to me that people assiduously look for new (or perhaps less familiar) reasons to believe old ideas.

. I think one emerges from all this thinking with a bent towards what one already IS coming into it. — Astrophel

Yes, I think that's fair. Philosophy reflects one's disposition.

...that arises simply out of a failure to observe what lies befor one's waking analytic eyes-- two things: first, this indeterminacy IS our existence, and it is where philosophy meets the pavement, so to speak. it is where philosophy belongs in the affirmative effort to bring to light the world as it IS. The world is most emphatically NOT an argument in its ground, but is entirely alien to everydayness, into which we are "thrown". — Astrophel

I’m reminded of theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart who writes that when consciousness is freed from ego, distraction, and fragmentation, it encounters reality as inherently good and radiant. Bliss isn’t something added to existence, it is woven into its nature. Hart often stresses that the fact anything exists rather than nothing presents us with a kind of metaphysical astonishment, something so basic we usually miss the strangeness of it. Are you sympathetic to this, or is it straying too far into a specific religious mystical tradition?

. As far as I am concerned, analytic philosophers are just a bunch of pathological post Kantians, who have entirely lost the sense of what it is to be human (yes, of course, there are exceptions), thinking the Truth lies in a truth table, an argument, and well drawn up theses. At heart, logicians. Might as well be mathematicians. — Astrophel

I take it this is at the heart of your thinking - this and the notion that whatever is transcendent is found in the immediate experince of being - that which seeks, wonders, hopes, dreams, desires...

This is, for me, where transcendence begins: to perceive the world that has been rigorously liberated from Heidegger's "the they" (the finite totality of what can possibly be meaningful for a person and her languge and culture) altogether, yet not leaving it at all, for without the they, agency itself is lost. — Astrophel

This could also be said to be heading toward mysticism and non-dualism, with the notion that the self (understood misleadingly as a product of culture, language, and upbringing) can be stripped of conceptual overlays and ego to realize true freedom. Or at least a new starting point. What is the next step, I wonder?

What do you think your understanding says about morality?

Oh, this is great. Thank you. Let me mull over it. Will return.

Restate it more simply? It's not really an argument. — Astrophel

I wasn’t saying you made an argument. Your writing was just opaque to me, so I was trying to get you to express it more clearly, particulary for those who don't necessarily share your background.

And, what makes the world knowable, which is the same as the question, what IS the world? — Astrophel

I’d say the world is not 'knowable'. We can live. do and make things, but when it comes to 'knowable,' I'm not sure what that even means. I don't think our human truths map onto some eternal reality.

Anglo-American philosophy students are left with an education in philosophy that does not touch the most essentially philosophical questions in existence. — Astrophel

That's frequently observed by the Continentals, but my background is 1) not in philosophy, and 2) neither Anglo nor American. And I get that philosophy is vast and there are differing approaches that are like oil and water to each other.

The good and the bad: what IS this? How are knowledge claims about the world actually about the world? What IS the world? — Astrophel

Well, as I wrote earlier, for me, they’re not so much about the world itself; they’re about our relationship with experience, and it’s contingent; connected to consciousness, language, and culture. But feel free to say more about this. Are you more interested in exploring these questions further, or would you prefer to leave it?

I'm not a phenomenologist, but for Husserl, for instance (and this is a reductive account) I understand the term transcendental refers to the conditions within consciousness that make moral experience and meaning possible. However, it seems later phenomenologists, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty somewhat were at odds with Husserl’s notion of the transcendental, arguing instead that meaning and ethics arise from our embodied, situated existence in the world rather than from a detached, pure consciousness model.

Is this where you are suggesting we look?

Both Theism and Mysticism view their God as a ghostly sovereign-in-the-sky commanding blind faith and obedient submission to the mysterious will & wishes of an invisible potentate, who loves you unconditionally. — Gnomon

I think you'll find that the God of mystics doesn't conform to such a stereotype at all, which, for many, is precisely the attraction. Take the God of Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic mystic: his God defies categorization and theology and is more a presence to be encountered in silence than a figure to be obeyed or even defined.

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon

That's the standard question posed by critics (ususally materialists) of this account: at the very least, a dignified Wittgensteinian silence, is often recommended. The ineffable is, of course, to those who believe, experienced through mystical insight and contemplation, so it's not something readily put into words. But there's plenty of respectable literature on the subject.

Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger. — Joshs

Nice.

And ask, while logic seems it cannot be gainsaid, how about the language that is used as the medium of its expression? Is this not historical and contingent?). — Astrophel

Indeed. And I have to say, contradictions and endless regress don’t often worry me much.

Thus, Rorty is going to argue that being kind to one another does not need religion to back it up, for it is built into, and inevitable in, a pragmatic social evolvement. — Astrophel

Yes, I’ve found Rorty, in as much as I can follow his thinking, compelling on this point. But probably because intuitively I have come to similar conclusion. While he may have his limitations, as a non-philosopher, I leave that to the academics and theory geeks to sort out.

But I say Rorty misses the point, and the point is genuine metaethics that is both foundation of ethics, and is transcendental: ethics as such transcends reduction to what can be said about ethics. Rorty's failing lies in his commitment to propositional truth, that is, truth is what sentences have, not the world. But this truth is derivative OF the world, and thus, the world has to be understood inits ethical dimension, not in the finitude of language. — Astrophel

Not sure I follow your wording. Are you saying that Rorty is too caught up in language to see that ethics comes from a deeper, more fundamental source, something beyond what we can put into words? Or something like that? Could you restate it more simply? I think we’ve tried to explore this notion of the transcendenal before, but we might be too far apart to get anywhere with it. As a non-philosopher, I take some responsibility for that. I am assuming you take the transcendental to mean something similar to Husserl's notion of the conditions of consciousness that make morality and meaning possible?

I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my own more up-to-date interests. :smile: — Gnomon

No need to apologize, it's expected on forums that people can only respond based on their own experiences or level of understanding, so mismatches in responses are common. That's part of the charm.

But, as a non-catholic, I have little knowledge or interest in those biblical theological accounts of God. — Gnomon

I'm not a Catholic either. But I did say this in the OP -

No doubt this idea of god's infinite, unknowable and divine essence could be said to overlap with other religious traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

Whether or not these accounts are ultimately persuasive, they at least ask different questions than those usually debated in popular discourse. — Tom Storm

I expected more references to Hinduism and Buddhism, but maybe these only appeal to a select group of older people, relics of the syncretic era (like me).

And most modern accounts of God/Reality/Mind --- Idealism, Panpsychism, etc. --- are merely ancient notions, up-dated to include scientific support for metaphysical god/mind concepts. — Gnomon

I think this is fair. It's sometimes not so much about up-to-date science, but rather focusing on gaps in science and the purported inconsistencies in traditional physicalist accounts, which, naturally, open the door to more speculative metaphysics. That's certainly how the indomitable and prolific Mr Kastrup does it.

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism?

I lay all this out to highlight that the first premise is more fundamental—an invariant moral principle that transcends both historical periods and cultural boundaries. It is precisely these kinds of foundational moral statements that I find most compelling. — Showmee

I see where you are coming from.

I don’t treat any of the premises as fundamental they’re all contingent. For example, if I caught someone invading my home, I might respond with force, possibly even lethally, depending on the circumstances.

I think a common flaw here would be assuming that treating all people equally is anything more than a demonstration of a particular framework of values, one that happens to be embedded in contemporary Western culture. But it’s part of a broader conversation, and that discussion is about who gets to count as a citizen with rights. Yes, cis women. But what about trans women? Some people don’t even recognise them as such.

And such advocacy of extended citizenship and solidarity, to use Rorty’s term, sits within a framework of cultural and linguistic practices. It is not something found outside of us as humans. We make agreements about values and develop practices, and these become embedded and sometimes appear to be immutable, but they are not.

I’m not sure that answers the question. What you’re saying is a well-known trope, essentially, if you were me you would be following the same path.

But my question isn’t about the obvious factors of personal situations/histories/biology, but about the specific thoughts or questions that you are working to address through your preoccupation with goodness. I’m assuming you are trying to achieve something and I’m interested in what that is. But you don’t need to answer if you don’t want to.

I get that you disagree with me about the Christianity reference. Disagreement is healthy. Happy to put to that to one side. The question remains: Why the preoccupation with being good in every possible circumstance?

As you can see from the quoted Bible verses, Christianity is not all-loving. — Truth Seeker

I never said Christianity is all loving and I know the old testament God is like a violent mafia boss. I said your message was ostensibly Christian. And it certainly fits.

But none of that really matters.

Why the preoccupation with being good in every possible circumstance?

Your preference is all it is. I can understand that you like music with certain characteristics, and possibly predict which compositions you will like. But that's not the same as saying those compositional are "good," or that I like them.


but there's an attitude I can adopt to both in seeing why they're the ones we are considering in the first place: they're both good! And what is this goodness? Why these people, and not the butchers of the same time period?
— Moliere
I'm a baroque fan in general, and Bach in particular. Vivaldi was one of his influences, so we can compare them easily enough. — Patterner

I think this is right. It's also worth noting that preferences change. I disliked Mozart and Beethoven when younger (I was a Mahler and Bruckner guy). Found the music ugly and cumbersome. Now I like some Mozart and most Beethoven. We change and the art changes with us.

I am an ex-Muslim ex-Christian Compassionist who does not believe in any God, so it is definitely not a form of Christianity. My motivation is my love for everyone. — Truth Seeker

It's still ostensibly like a Christian message. You don't need God to have a Christian moral outlook, it's embedded in culture. It's often said that human rights and secular morality are like Christianity sans Christ.

You seem to be driving yourself very hard.

This is the vow of a Compassionist:
1. I help all, harm none.
2. I see everyone - even the harmful, the indifferent, and the selfish - as shaped by forces beyond their control.
3. I replace blame and credit with understanding.
4. I replace judgment with care.
5. I love, not because the world is loving, but because love for all is the inevitable solution to the problems we face. — Truth Seeker

It's pretty much a form of Christianity. You seem to be intent on pushing yourself to be super good and significant in the world. Is this a bit grandiose; what's the motivation?

I suppose the main benefit, is a sense of peace, contentment, happiness etc. While nurturing a sense of wonder and a childlike humility. — Punshhh

That sounds like a useful position to be in. Thanks.

Now, if I’ve learned one thing from philosophy, it’s to restrain myself from making belief-changing judgments before thoroughly exploring all the available information. While I, too, intuitively feel that moral propositions are artificially constructed and mind-dependent, it's still an interesting question to ask whether it might be the case that these principles possess the same degree of self-evidence and absolute certainty as logical or mathematical statements. — Showmee

Sure.

I mean, is it really possible to imagine a world where people kill whenever they feel like it—and genuinely regard this as morally acceptable? Or is the concept of justice truly contingent, when it just feels inherently wrong for one of two equally qualified candidates to be chosen solely because she is a good friend of the selector? — Showmee

Well, those feelings, as you put it, don’t come out of nowhere. We are a social species who are raised to believe in the common good and right and wrong. So, we are primed for morality from the very start of life. It’s hardly surprising that we have built ethical scaffolding all around us. But you’ll note, over a century ago a woman with a job, for instance, was considered deviant and wrong. This was a feeling also. Today (unless you’re in some unsophisticated or uber religious part of the world), the idea of women with jobs is not seen as a moral problem. Humans make decisions based on frameworks and values and these are intrenched in our culture and language.

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused). — 180 Proof

I can certainly see how this works. What percentage of Americans do you think are sincere God believers? It's pretty low here in Australia and most Aussies are embarrassed about religious conversations.

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems. — Gnomon

I’m familiar with the work of most of those writers. Kastrup is the most engaging in person and on his blog though his books are a bit dense and convoluted for my taste. Dennett, the Churchlands (when Pat's husband was still alive), and Vickers are all bêtes noires of the higher-consciousness crowd, often reviled as materialist muppets who miss the obvious. Hart's account of Dennett is particularly brutal. I can't claim expertise in the area, but I find it interesting that Graham Oppy, a philosophically sophisticated atheist whom Hart respects, considers himself an identity theorist when it comes to the mind. Oppy claims to have resolved some of the mistakes made in earlier versions of that account. But this is for elsewhere.

Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile: — Gnomon

Sure, but I’m not asking for explanations of the world or reality. I’m asking how people defend and describe more philosophical accounts of God.

Glattfelder is a form of idealist who combines information with consciousness as the fabric of reality. It’s all very interesting, but it belongs in the idealism thread. As it happens, I’m not even sure I would count Kastrup’s Mind-at-Large as a God surrogate, although one might sneak it in as borderline. The issue is that Kastrup (like most idealists) needs some kind of intervening cosmic force to unify his various strands and ideas borrowed from Jung and Schopenhauer. He comes up with this cosmic mind idea as an alternative to Schop's “will.” For Kastrup, the Great Mind is instinctive and not metacognitive, so many of the attributes of God are missing. But I guess it qualifies as 'the ground of being' given we are all dissociated alters springing from this primal stream of consciousness which is all there is.

And yet I can’t go to a spiritual, or mystical based forum to discuss it there because they are places full of people with very little critical rigour in their philosophies, or ideologies. Most of it is out and out woo. I expect you know what I am referring to as you spent time involved in the New Age movement. — Punshhh

Yes, that’s an interesting point. If you take this material seriously, it’s not easy to find people who are disciplined or rigorous about it. It’s been a long time since I was involved in any real way. The closest I can get to what you’re saying is that my fullest experience of the world is entirely intuitive and I can't always access words to explain why I choose certain paths.

I know that there are spiritual based organisations and communities within the schools of thought, such as Buddhism, Yoga, Theosophy etc. But I don’t want to become involved in any of these movements at this point. I’ve been there and done that. — Punshhh

I hear you. Do you mind if I ask, what does it feel like to hold the beliefs you have? Is there reassurance, or a profound sense of meaning? Or is it ineffable?

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth? — Gnomon

I think the thread has shown a diverse range of responses to the OP, so I’m pleased. But these things tend to take on a life of their own, as you've suggested. I don't place too much weight on any particular sentence or paragraph, it’s all just a big casserole of ideas built around a hero ingredient. I'm not looking for this to go anywhere in particular. It's a conversation.

But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration — Gnomon

I'm not sure about that. Philosophically inclined thinkers seem to rely upon the work of others: heavy hitters in the subject (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Husserl, etc) . And they are focused on pre-existing models as understood through scholarship - formal and modal logic, phenomenology, pragmatism, post-structuralism, etc. It's a fairly small cohort.

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. Which is why the following (although ostensibly about Kant's position) is a good summary.

Quoting @Wayfarer

"So when Kant says that God is “beyond all possible experience,” that’s true within the bounds of his system. But that’s also the crux of the critique: what if those bounds are too narrow? What if there are legitimate forms of insight that don’t conform to his propositional model? Mystical traditions, contemplative practices, and certain strands of idealist or existentialist philosophy have all tried to develop alternatives to that constraint. Which is not to reject Kant but to broaden the context in which his questions are considered.

In that sense, the question isn’t just “what can we know?” but “what counts as knowing?” And that’s still very much a live question.

However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. — AmadeusD

Yes, I think these are artists who transcend the genre. Most music lovers seem to like them, even if they dislike Country. I certainly enjoy some Johnny Cash and Hank Williams on occasion. I think one's commitment to music may change for some of us with age. I listen to far less music now I am older. I used to spend a couple of hours a day listening to classical music. I sometimes think our desire for music is connected to other appetites, emotions and energies which subdue, divert or dissipate over time. One thing I have noticed is that music has a greater emotional impact on me with age.

Sounds like you have a lot of insight.

I very much doubt there's a fixall. If I get to be scientistic, that's mostly because I think "depression" likely covers a lot of possible causes. — Moliere

Indeed.

EDIT: Also, I've noticed that people who have depression often emote in a lively and animated way. But then, after having done the performance necessary for them, they return to a place where they can charge up to do it again. — Moliere

I've worked with many dozens of people experiencing chronic depression over the years. While everyone is different, it's clear that those who ignore the diagnosis and refuse to seek help often suffer the most and many do not survive. You're right, one can't pick the depressed person from their performance on a forum or even how they seem at work.

What have you found helpful? Has contact with others and activity helped or deepened the experince?