I think Debussy is more well known, and he was the flashy flow state guy. He's easy to fall in love with right off the bat, but Ravel takes time to appreciate, and Ravel was the method man. As I get older I've shifted from preferring Debussy to now preferring Ravel. — Noble Dust

I found Ravel a lot more interesting when I was a kid. Debussy struck me as bland and equivocal. My favoured music as a kid - say 20 years old - were Wagner, Mahler, Shostakovich, R Strauss and Ravel. I disliked Chopin, Bach, Debussy, Mozart. Of course, now I often prefer this latter music and I think there is something about ageing which sets aside the 'heavy metal' classics in favour of more nuanced and sometimes mathematical composers. But everyone's different. I never listened to pop or rock - i found them impossible to relate to.

Brazillian Jiu jitsu;
- Drums, voice, guitar, bass, keys.. few others, including Irish Whistle!;
- Songwriting in light of the above - 23 albums and counting;
- Free Running/Parkour (mostly handstands and other power moves);
- Writing comedy for television and other stand-ups;
- Writing battle raps that will never see the light of day (though, there is footage of me doing several battles out there on the internet... )
- Collecting/enjoying Whisky/ey and fine Wine;
- Currently Learning Spanish and Arabic;
- Trying to solve the origins of the Voynich manuscript;
- Visiting puppy litters; and
- Writing science fiction (two pieces, thus far.. but one is a Trilogy for which i've only begun the first volume). — AmadeusD

Very industrious. I have no hobbies.

The closest thing to a hobby I had was 20 years drinking whisky and meeting strangers in bars. Loved almost every minute of that, but quit to save my liver.

Sounds like foundations of existentialism.

From a very young age, perhaps 7 or 8, I formed the view that human life was inherently meaningless. This has rarely depressed me. Mostly I found it amusing; that all our chasing after things, our ambitions and our self-importance is really for nothing. There's a freedom in this. We don't need to prove anything to anyone and we are always good enough. I also think that being happy or finding joy is perfectly compatible with meaninglessness. Joy isn't dependent upon inherent significance, it can come to anyone for any reason. I think our experience of this has less to do with what we believe about life and more about our disposition, personality and brain chemistry.

There was his notorious exclamation in a very late interview in the German media, 'only a God can save us now'. Courtesy of Google, I can now reproduce it, and it's oddly consonant with the remark above: — Wayfarer

Interesting. I've heard a number of atheists make the same point. Mainly that only magic can get us out of the shitstorm we seem to have created for ourselves.

Hard to know what he meant, the old enigmatic devil...

Philosophy strikes me as "fools gold" for both the theist and the atheist. And Heidegger's philosophy is no exception. — Arne

Say some more on this.

So up until now I've treated faith as trust in a person or person-like entity; but you can actually direct a similar energy towards your habits (like, say, rational thought). It's served you well until now. It's, I think, a variant of putting faith in yourself: when I do this I succeed, and if I don't it's not my problem. (I'm a rational atheist; those are irrational theists... and such.) Come to think of it, this is where "confidence" comes in after all. I have no trouble of thinking of that as some kind of "faith". The difference seems to me mostly... rhetorical? — Dawnstorm

I still can't see how you got there. Sorry.

My focus is primarily on the reality (or not) of the entity (gods), not upon the reasonable confidence.

From early on, you put your trust in God the way you put your trust in your parents. — Dawnstorm

I don't see how these relate since we can demonstrate the existence of parents and interact with them and easily assess whether they can be trusted or not. Lots of children don't trust their parents because experience has taught them not to. We can't gauge trust in the same way for any gods I am aware of. We can't even demonstrate if they are real. How are they the same?

When I cross the street I put my faith in the drivers; they will not run me over. When I get on a plane, I put my faith in lots of people: engineers and pilots come to mind. And so on. — Dawnstorm

I would focus less on the putting of faith and more on the reality of the physical experience. When I cross a street I am interacting with physical processes which I can demonstrate to be true and which is more or less identically shared with others. I only cross at lights (if at all possible) and I practice vigilance, looking to see if the road is clear. I believe I can have reasonable confidence that empiricism and the fact that I seem to inhabit a physical reality will allow for a safe crossing.

I don't see quite how putting faith in an invisible being, which is likely unknowable and about which there is not much agreement or good evidence can compare to the physical process of crossing a road or catching a plane.

What am I missing in your analysis?

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I have a copy of some Sean Kelly lectures on the subject which have been interesting. But it leaves me none the wiser.

I suspect his thinking is too lofty to incorporate a personal god.
— Tom Storm

I disagree. Nothing in his thinking precludes a personal God. — Arne

i didn't mean to argue that his ideas preclude a personal God, just that his thinking had been somewhat too lofty to focus on this narrow subject, given that Heidegger seems to regard the project of being as significant enough to be getting on with. If I had paid attention to philosophy 40 years ago, then perhaps I might have developed some useful understanding of H's critique of onto-theology and more fully apprehended how we are situated in the reality we experience and how being might take us beyond notions of god. Or something like that.

I've read something of his history and some essays on his thought and some work by Dreyfus (whose reading of H may not be seen as adequate these days) but this seems a hard matter to get perspective on. I suspect his thinking is too lofty to incorporate a personal god.

Similarly, I think a necessary part of belief in God is not knowing sufficiently if God may, say, answer my prayer, but nonetheless believe God has my best interests in mind, or that God exists at all, despite not having sufficient knowledge of His existence. — QuixoticAgnostic

But why do we require faith? Why aren't gods simply present in our lives and why this:

That feels like us testing God, rather than the other way around, and I think belief in God would be diminished if it could simply be proven or shown to be true as a fact. — QuixoticAgnostic

This seems crazy to me. Why would gods be invisible and why would testing gods not be ok?

Why is divine hiddenness a thing? Why would gods, who in scripture interact with humans - whether Islam, Judaism or Hindu scriptures - now only be available through faith or some old books or via a priestly caste?

But if I do find myself believing in some God, it will be through reason, not faith. — QuixoticAgnostic

I am an atheist by feel or intuition. The god hypothesis never helped me to make sense of anything and the idea of a deity felt absurd to me from the age of 7 or 8. Of course as a good atheist, I have had to deal with a range of apologists and many times had to run through the various well-worn and shop-soiled arguments, which for me come post hoc. As I've often said, I think belief in gods is often similar to a sexual preference - you are either attracted or not.

Though Heidegger is the philosopher I tend to read most, you may rest assured I have read far more Nietzsche than the average person. — Arne

I find both dull and unreadable, but that's on me. Can you say something about what Heidegger thinks about god or theism?

On the other hand, psychologist George Kelly makes some good points about the dangers of a realistic attitude being taken too far: — Joshs

Yes, everything can be taken too far. I don't consider myself a realist.

My chief interest here is in learning how to present it so it will be understood. That is still a work in progress. The responses here have been helpful. — Mark S

Who is your intended audience? If it's the average person, me, for instance, I struggle to see why it should matter to me.

My interest is how to make the science of morality culturally useful. — Mark S

What would that look like in practice?

My understanding of morality is that it's a code of conduct (an agglomeration of historical cultural mores) enforced through a legal system. Morality provides stability and predictability, which helps societies to thrive (within certain parameters, given that the powerful can manipulate most moral systems to suit their interests).

How different is your view to this?

Can you briefly show me an example of a cooperation strategy in action and how this sheds light on morality?

The inherent rightness or wrongness of certain actions (e.g., murder or stealing) is a separate matter, I take it?

Making life better (or more richly interesting) and survival is why we strive to understand the world. — BC

Yes, I'd go along with this - which fits with my idea that dissatisfaction is often the fillip for philosophy.

I think a generic 'curiosity' is a fairly inchoate or unsophisticated path to knowledge or philosophical acumen. The real skill is in questioning the assumptions the answers one encounters. This seems quite sophisticated and requires rigorous critical reflection. I’m not good at this past a certain point.

Yes, I find myself on this "love of wisdom" or "study of reality" site, and often think that many of the arcane posts I read have nothing to do with the price of potatoes--aka, reality. But, carry on, gentlemen. — BC

Bullshit certainly seems to get a run on this site. But I also think there are a range of arcane explorations of subjects here that are simply beyond my interest or capacity. But if I did understand, they might well be transformative and enlightening.

In the end, I fear that all of us, no matter how well educated in this subject, still need to piss and eat and still need to treat the world as though realism were true, which means avoiding the worst of the cold, trying to dodge cancer and scrounging enough money to live comfortably into old age.

I don't like the terms innocence and wisdom; they're way too loaded to mean much. And I don't think the boss of innocence leads to the gain of wisdom. Innocence is lost early on. Wisdom comes along a lot later and is the result of being 'refined' in the mills of experience. — BC

I think we agree.

I don’t think words like innocence or wisdom are particularly useful,

My point about dissatisfaction being the launching pad of much philosophy doesn’t imply that wisdom is achieved. I’m not sure that philosophy has a necessary connection to wisdom. In some cases, perhaps. And perhaps more so if you fetishise wisdom in some Platonic framework. For me wisdom is enhanced discernment or judgement generally based upon experience.

Sorry I can’t follow most of your response.

Is there such a thing as the Philosophy of Sport? Should there be? — Ciceronianus

Maybe you're asking the wrong guy. I don't watch or participate in any form of sport. And I'm not sure about the merit of philosophy more generally.

But more broadly, I'm fairly sure you can have a philosophy of anything. Does sport seek to convey ideas the way art does? Is technique and skill at games the same as technique and skill in literature, poetry, painting?

No doubt one can build a philosophy around what sport represents, the hierarchies and conservatism intrinsic to participation, rules and codification, etc.

Philosophers are nothing but curious children, and children are our purest philosophers. Do you agree? And if so, is this drive still a part of our collective will? — kudos

If you are asking about the impulse to philosophy, I would think it often seems to be connected to unhappiness or dissatisfaction. People who are content may not need to ask such questions.

Philosophy for me isn't just the asking of questions, more importantly, it involves the forensic examination of our presuppositions, along with an underlying suspicion that what we consider our foundations may be insubstantial and flawed.

Au contraire, metaphysics being onanistic is a central point of contention re misology. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I wasn't referring to metaphysics. I was referring to the human urge to anthropomorphise such things as nature, animals and objects. I think this tendency to project ourselves onto everything around us like this is not entirely healthy - but I thought this point was too trivial to debate in this thread.

Your position on this looks a lot like those odd people who turn up here sometimes, loudly calling for the end of belief. They seem to think belief only pertains to belief in God. — Jamal

Really? Perhaps you formed this view because I was discussing 'faith' in god (as per Hebrews 11) and not belief more generally. Say some more so I understand your critique.

I think it's completely reasonable for you to say "they aren't the same thing", I just don't think the argument about why they're not the same thing relies on defining faith in a super narrow way such that they're only tautologically not the same thing — flannel jesus

Ok. I'll mull over this.

Does anyone practice liberalism from some manual? Isn't liberalism like most belief systems, something one partly assimilates from culture and partly anticipates by selecively applying various bits of social policy and theory?

Liberalism as we now understand it is the idea that no conception of the good life is to be imposed, and everyone is to be allowed to pursue their own notion of the good life. — Leontiskos

I think this is pluralism and it sounds pretty decent to me. But I don't know any cultures that allow this where it might get in the way of capitalism or the dominant power and ideology of a country. The safety of others is also a consideration for the most part.

Do you think your narrow use of the word is the norm or are you trying to promote a new norm? — flannel jesus

For the purposes of this OP I'm trying to promote a more precise use of the word. Whether you or anyone else don't care to use it my preferred way doesn't matter - we're just having a conversation about using the word faith, right?

I don't think it's some sneaky rhetorical tool. — flannel jesus

I didn't say it was 'sneaky'. It's an obvious rhetorical tool. When apologists say things like - 'Don't knock faith, you use it all the time, like when you catch a plane.' I say this is an equivocation. You can't compare faith in god with a 'reasonable confidence' in a quotidian matter, for reasons spelt out ad nauseam earlier in this thread.

OK, but, as you well know, you are not the only English user of that word. Other people do use it in wider contexts than just the religious, even if you might consider such usage “inaccurate”. — javra

Yes, and as I have said on this site many times, I consider it a bad use of the word. I will always be happy to point this out in my conversations with others.

I don't know. Religious matters can well be quotidian (i.e., commonplace and everyday) in certain populaces, which seems to fully sidestep the distinction you're trying to make. — javra

My point is that 'faith' is best used to describe certain people's justification for gods. To use 'faith' to describe plane flight or crossing the road is a rhetorical tool used by apologists who like to equivocate on language to help them smuggle in their ideas.

I am well aware that people use language differently, which is why I enjoy having my say when there is an opportunity. We're not trying to change the world here, just have conversations and share our views. :wink:

Without further context "the work environment" refers to nothing that can be discussed. So, If the point was to tease out biases in the response, sure this is reasonable. But if the point was to discuss "the work environment" with anything approximating value or meaning, then this is a dead end thread.

The fact is the concept presented for discussion differs from case-to-case-to-case in such wildly intense degrees that this is not a coherent concept in and of itself. Not really apt to be discussed other than.... — AmadeusD

Yes, this was my reaction.

Maybe this is intended as a conversation about the ethics of Western capitalism.

What do you mean by unethical behaviour? I have rarely seen this, unless you mean capitalism itself, which many do consider to be wage slavery.

Someone claimed philosophy is art. Being a mischievous sort, I suggested this did a disservice to art. Philosophers aren't artists, and when they try to be, they fail, miserably I think. — Ciceronianus

I don't think this is a mischievous view, more of a conventional one. I suspect most people would be in agreement with you that philosophers are not artists.

And I would agree that it's not useful to reclassify philosophers as artists. What I was saying was that there is an artistic sensibility, an artistic creative power behind some philosophical visions/works. And that (perhaps) the act of philosophy can also be considered an artistic one, as per Janus below -

For me the purpose of the arts is the creation of novel ways of seeing, hearing, feeling and thinking. The 'novel' part is where the creative imagination comes into play. — Janus

I think this largely captures it. I think many professions have their artists and visionaries - exponents with prodigious levels of skill, innovation, creativity. You don't have to be an artist to have an artistic imagination or produce works of great literary and artistic significance. As per our earlier discussion about President Grant's memoirs.

I think there are some philosophers who are also superb prose stylists and writers of significant literary merit. Since literature is an art form, I have no hesitation is describing Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, as great literary artists, as well as prominent exponents of philosophy. Whether one agrees with them, or appreciates their works is irrelevant to this matter.

Certainty comes in different degrees of strength—e.g., from being fairly certain to being extremely certain—and so it need not be absolute, by which I here understand “unshakable” and “complete”. — javra

My question came about because of the use of the word 'confidence', which I had laid out in a different context earlier, as an alternative to faith.

In relation to degrees of certainty, I have no particular view on this. Generally I either believe something or I don't. As far as I can recall, I don't often ascribe probabilities or degrees of confidence to anything. I don't think I am absolutely certain about anything.

The only time I use the word faith in conversation is to describe someone's religious views. I try to avoid using this word to describe quotidian matters.

So faith is absolute confidence? But confidence need not be absolute? — TiredThinker

How did you arrive at that? Isn't faith certainty?

the individual ego as arbiter of truth. — Wayfarer

I fail to see how it has ever been anything but this. We may dress up our individual egos in drag with Islam or liberalism or existentialism, but in the end we are emotionally driven creatures who make choices based on what (we think) pleases us and how we as individuals interpret ideas.

Liberalism is incoherent because it claims to be value-neutral, and yet there is no way to distinguish hate speech from assault given value neutrality. — Leontiskos

I've never known any liberals to say this. Can you provide an example?

and leads to anthropomorphic musings

But aren't this inevitable in anything we say?

I don't really see the danger in anthropomorphizing. Human beings are of the world, in the world. Obviously, we make mistakes when we anthropomorphize. Animism is ubiquitous in early cultures and children, "the sky is cloudy because it is sad." But the same faculties that lead to that judgement lead to its rejection. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think anthropomorphising is lazy and onanistic. And worse, it is often wrong. But it's too minor a problem to debate. :wink:

Anyway, as I say, a bit of a flight of ideas on my part. — Wayfarer

I enjoy such flights of ideas.

I don't know why you make the point whether Heidegger was 'theistic', as if I were suggesting that he was, or defending 'theism'. — Wayfarer

No, I guess my point is that people tend to tie nihilism to a lack of belief in gods or transcendental entities (antifoundationalism) and as far as I know Heidegger lacked belief in these. So his answer to nihilism seems not to be located in superphysical transcendence, but rather in a form of self-reflection on being, as you suggest. But this is not my subject.

We have order even in language:
entropy Chaos even from apparent readily and my more perspective seem.

Hence:
I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.
— Nietszche — Wayfarer

Not sure why we arrived at nihilism in this discussion and I never agued that humans don't find order useful - we are meaning making creatures, from our perspective finding order seems a ready and efficient way to make ideas work for us. But does this transcend our cognitive apparatus? I guess as a form of Platonist you would say, 'yes' (eg, maths as found rather rather than invented).

Grammar varies with languages and one culture's grammar looks like chaos to another's. So if grammar is a faith, it's sectarian and contingent, like that in gods. :wink:

Nothing here about Heidegger suggests he was a theist or a Platonist. Being can be radically contingent and still involve interconnection. Plenty of room for atheism in embodied cognition.

Doesn't Heidegger think that our tendency to conceive of gods and Platonic forms is foundational to nihilism? Being seems to be his way out of all of this.

ChatGPT on Heidegger and nihilsim

Metaphysics and Nihilism: Heidegger traced the roots of nihilism to the history of Western metaphysics, particularly to the tradition of ontotheology, which he critiqued for reducing Being to a concept or entity (e.g., God or the highest being). He argued that this metaphysical understanding of Being contributed to the forgetfulness of Being and the emergence of nihilism.

@joshs apologies for the above ChatGPT - this is obviously not my area. Any general thoughts on what Heidegger thought of theism or Platonism?

But once you start deciding that key ways we cognize the world are illusory, it seems hard to know where to stop. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure, but I haven’t decided that.

We dont have to assume our cognitions are illusory simply because we recognize the inextricable role of the subject and intersubjective community in the construction of our understanding of nature. — Joshs

Exactly.

Isn't the whole concept of scientific or natural law built on the assumption of there being a natural order — Wayfarer

Not sure about that. There are certainly regularities we are able to ride like surfers riding waves, but ‘natural order’ and laws’ seem grandiose and leads to anthropomorphic musings. Chaos and entropy seem even more readily apparent from my perspective. I don’t see how we can come to any firm conclusions about the nature of reality.

Do you think you can know too much and become jaded about something? — Pantagruel

If you are asking is it possible to know a place well and thereby understand its flaws? Then yes. There's a reason they say absence makes the heart grow fonder. :wink:

I think most western countries are victims of neoliberalism and the collapse of communities and public confidence which this has wrought. Australia is no different. But I would have no advice to anyone wanting to migrate to Australia. All I can really say is it's often unbearably hot and housing is unaffordable. Personally, I'd rather blazing sun than snow.

We are looking seriously at emigrating to England (from Canada). Mainly for the warmer winters, also the community feel of village life. I feel it has a stronger socialist sentiment also. — Pantagruel

Interesting, possibly a romantic view. From an Australian perspective, everyone I know who wants to emigrate, wants to go to Canada - England being regarded as dysfunctional and a broken ruin, thanks to years of Tory and New Labour neo-liberalism and 'free'-market cock sucking.

With respect to the range of reason, surely one of the factors that underpinned traditional philosophy was the conviction that the Cosmos was itself rational in some foundational sense. — Wayfarer

Why do you think we should regard the cosmos as knowable, let alone rational in any sense?

And naturalism presumes no such cosmic reason or 'logos'. This is where the 'all-encompassing relativism' — Wayfarer

I don't know how anyone can determine whether the universe exhibits chaos or order. How does one do this except by using a human made criteria?

I'm intrigued that you are willing to accept the rather infamous 'blind spot in science' - the role of the observer as foundational in constructing reality - yet simultaneously regard the idea that order and reason (which we apprehend because we observe or infer them) transcend our observational constructivism. Which aspect of being an observer allows us to see the world and the order or reason in it objectively?

Just watched Season 2 of Succession. I was largely indifferent to Season 1, so revisited this show late. Two is much better. It's a fairly unpleasant watch (the people in it are all dreadful) and Logan Roy, the gruff paterfamilias, is not especially well written but is very well performed. As presented, for me it's hard to accept Logan as a business genius or a key 20th century innovator in media and news distribution. The fact he is a billionaire, a Murdoch analogue, we just have to accept. To me he seems more like a low-calorie King Lear, but Cox is strong enough to avoid it feeling cartoony.

How many types of faith are there? — TiredThinker

No idea. Outside of religion the word is used metaphorically and IMO wrongly.

I've heard it said that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they have no good reasons to beleive it.

As per Hebrews 11 - "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

Religious apologists will often try to bend the definition of faith to include science or daily activities in an attempt to normalize the magical thinking.

The common ones - 'You have faith that the plane you catch will fly safely." "You have faith you can cross the road safely."

I think it's inaccurate to use the word faith in those instances. They are actually reasonable expectations, not faith. They are founded on experience and knowledge. For instance, we know planes fly safely. We know there are trained pilots. We know there are engineers who maintain the equipment on planes. We know there's a demonstrable physics which explains how planes fly. We know that almost all flights take off and land safely. To use faith here is absurd. We can have a reasonable expectation that plane flight is safe. But we don't have access to certainty.

Ditto crossing the road. If we cross with care we can be reasonably confident we can cross without being hit. Faith would be crossing the road wearing a blindfold and marching straight into traffic.

To argue, as some might, that we have faith in science is a specious argument. Science is a model that provides reliable results we can test. It's empirical, so faith is superfluous. I think we can be confident in science as a tool which provides tentative models for understanding the reality we know. Science is not a synonym for certainty.

the presence of creative imagination and technical skill — Janus

:up:

U.S. Grant wrote very well (in his memoirs), but isn't considered an artist. — Ciceronianus

But my argument isn't that any particular figures be considered primarily as artists, or that we should reclassify their oeuvre.

My point is that what they do can also be understood as art. They sometimes exemplify and perhaps even perfect an artistic mode of expression. Grant's memoirs are a literary masterpiece. Along with many other things, Grant turned out to be a significant literary artist.

Christopher Hitchens wrote excellent essays, but wasn't an artist. — Ciceronianus

I never much fancied Hitchens' essays to be honest. (I have most of them on my shelf) I prefer his talks or speeches. But again - the essay is an art form. Why can't we say that a significant journalist's talent is artistic when it is great? No doubt Hitchens wrote some exceptional essays and he made imperishable contributions to the art form. I don't think you have to be an 'artist' to produce works of significant artistic merit.

I think my request for examples of the great philosophical works of imagination akin to art will go unanswered, and with good reason. — Ciceronianus

I think the good reason is the one I already gave.

That said, depending upon one's definition of art, i would think that some of the works of great philosophical imagination (even if you hold they are wrongheaded) count as artistic responses, something like poetry. — Tom Storm

Perhaps you have a slightly implacable, fixed notion of what counts as art. It doesn't have to be a poem, painting or sculpture. And perhaps I am too generous..

I would hold that great literature is art. IMO Camus and Sartre and Nietzsche certainly qualify there. You could add Schopenhauer, who writes exceptional prose. I would imagine there are many contenders. As I said, you don't have to like them as thinkers to see the artistic nature of the works.

I think we can probably also include acts of great creative imagination, which find new ways to describe the world. Might we not also include thinkers like Spinoza or Husserl?

Of course, this can swiftly end up in that quagmire of debates, what counts as art? And Christ knows we don't want to wade around in that one.

:up: