Never true? I've used it and meant it.

I've been watching the British detective series Midsomer Murders. It really is bland, predictable pap with atrocious Mickey Mousing incidental music. Perhaps this is why it is so popular with pensioners all around the world.

I wonder how many have pissed on Sartre”s grave? — Rob J Kennedy

Well, a lot have pissed on his legacy, but this isn't really a grave that invites micturition. When I piss on a grave, I generally choose this one.

The purpose of this thread is to collect true-sounding falsehoods and false-sounding truthhoods and thus free the world of great sounding quotes that seem helpful but actually, probably, or possibly ARE NOT TRUE. — BC

Most of what's cited so far are true some of the time or are poetic truths. Are there any that are never true?

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Tom Storm

The quote above isn't from me. I think I was responding to someone else, citied it and you have picked it up under my name. I don't know if philosophers are elitist.

Maybe he is a p-zombie. — baker

Excellent, a joke, finally in this terribly dry thread on humour. :clap:

Thank you both for your explanations. I feel lucky to be able to partake in these sorts of conversations with people who know their stuff and understand their presuppositions.

This quote from Rosen is very helpful.

The purpose of the text is to stimulate the reader to think, and it does that by being an intricate construction with many implications, some of which are indeterminate in the sense that you can’t be sure of what Plato meant and what Socrates meant, but they are intended to make you, the interpreter, do your thinking for yourself ... I think that it would be better to emphasize that the dialogue has as its primary function the task of stimulating the reader to think for himself, not to find the teaching worked-out for him.

For Strauss, there were three levels of the text: the surface; the intermediate depth, which I think he did think is worked out; and the third and deepest level, which is a whole series of open or finally unresolvable problems. Strauss tended to emphasize the first and the second. I wouldn’t say he didn’t mention the third, whereas I concentrate on the third.

This covers off on much of what I thought phislophy is for.

Not everyone will defend so stark a position as expressed here, but it is undeniably a major influence on today’s culture. And do notice the hostility that criticism of it engenders. — Wayfarer

I get it and I am interested in this way of looking at things. I want to understand it as best I can. Don't you think however that there is also a lot of hostility in the other direction (from those who hold idealist positions), who persistently disparage physicalists?

The triumph of materialism in the sphere of cosmology and metaphysics had the profoundest impact on human self-understanding. The message it conveyed was that the inward dimensions of our existence, with its vast profusion of spiritual and ethical concerns, is mere adventitious superstructure. The inward is reducible to the external, the invisible to the visible, the personal to the impersonal. Mind becomes a higher order function of the brain, the individual a node in a social order governed by statistical laws. All humankind's ideals and values are relegated to the status of illusions: they are projections of biological drives, sublimated wish-fulfillment. — “Bhikkhu Bodhi, A Buddhist Response to the Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence

I can see how one might argue like this. It's an emotive and tendentious response. The idea that all of 'humankind's ideals and values are illusions' is something I have intuited to be the case since I was 7 or 8 years old. I guess I am still interested to find out if my intuitions were right or not.

We always come back to understandings of Platonism - whether we're talking consciousness or esoterica.

You clearly take issue with for a secular and, shall we say, 'modern' reading of Plato and Aristotle? You think his take, though scholarly, stops short where it matters, right?

Do you think is projecting his perennialist biases upon Plato?

At heart in most of these discussions you hold the position that there is a realm beyond the quotidian world and that this can be understood/accessed through a range of approaches - e.g., Buddhism, Tao, Jnana Yoga, and the classical Western philosophical tradition, which has been filleted by secularism and modernist understandings.

Your view seems to be that a competent reading of Plato does not necessarily support the above.

We can know nothing whatsoever about whatever might be "beyond being". The idea is nothing more than the dialectical opposite of 'being'. Fools have always sought to fill the 'domains' of necessary human ignorance with their "knowing". How much misery this has caused humanity is incalculable. — Janus

Nice. I was just thinking very similar thoughts. I suspect this goes to the core of the OP's question. The esoterica of the gaps....

I’ll give it one last go: — javra

My mistake. I did understand the point you were making what I wasn't clear about was its applicability to my initial comments. But I do get it: some people may know things we don't and that's no reason for them to be smug and disdainful. Agree.

I'm more interested in the common phenomenon in the world of esoterica where some people falsely think they have knowledge and consider anyone who isn't in their in-group to be a plonker. But it's a small point and not pivotal to Jack's OP.

Thank you that's a great sketch. I will copy it and pop it in my collection of useful quotes.

Quick answer, the Good cannot be known. The best we can do is determine what through inquiry and examination seems best to us while remaining open to the fact that we do not know. — Fooloso4

:up:

feel like humanity needs to flourish in a way that they take each others ideas and beliefs more seriously and emphatize with them and instead find meaning in each other. — Ege

:up:

Cool. What is the foundation of your ethical system - how does one determine what the good is? When we say something 'needs to' happen is there more than self-interest at work?

prolonging the complacent okayhood of a prosperous minority for a few extra decades is not quite the same as "it didn't happen then, so it can't happen now" which is what I've been hearing more and more frequently since the 1960's. — Vera Mont

Not what I was arguing. I was just pointing out that existential dread for these reasons has been with us for many decades. And we don't really know when it all goes to shit. As no doubt it one day will.

By the way, it would help if you separated your ideas with paragraphs - it is hard to read long slabs of text.

I have no idea what the future holds and spend little time thinking about it.

I feel like we as humans don't do anything much with the technological capability that we have on our hands. or even the technological wonder that we were born with; our brains. — Ege

Could be. It doesn't much concern me. All we can control is what we do with our own minds and hands. My only principle has been to do what I think is right and read from a wider range of sources.

I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing - are you saying that people are not taking life and their responsibility as citizens seriously enough and, perhaps, not concerned enough with eudaimonia (flourishing) as Aristotle might have it?

Back in the 1980's I remember reading letters, with content just like your OP, in environmental and left leaning newspapers. Back then, many thought the greenhouse effect (an early version of climate change) would take out most life on earth. People thought President Reagan would probably blow up Russia with atomic bombs and many thought capitalism would eat itself and take out the West. Many also thought that we were heading for annihilation and that people were too obsessed with their own success and greed to do anything to prevent the end of the world from coming. Many of us didn't think we'd make it to the year 2000. Nothing much changes.

Human life may well come to an end one day. And one day, perhaps a person will write something like you have above and finally be right.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making.

Hey, I'm just a simple minded skeptic. I often think that many of the stories human tell each other (especially in the realm of meaning) are just narratives to fill the time and make us feel better.

To sum things up, I damn well want my parents, my teachers, etc., and the philosophers I read to be better than me in terms of what they have, or had, to teach. And they ought to confidently known this before attempting to impart lessons to me. But if any were to think of me as an inferior in terms of the value of my life, they could then stick it where the sun don’t shine as far as I care. — javra

So this isn't a frame I use. If I am assessing someone as 'better than me' then we run into the problem that it is my assessment that has determined this judgment. How can I reliably judge who I should listen to or read? How can I identify, from a foundational bedrock of inadequacy, that which is better than me? This is probably going to come down to how someone impacts me emotionally and whether their style captures my imagination.

But my concern is simply with the old trope - "I have a secret that the ordinary pissants don't know about.' Having kicked around in Theosophy circles for some years I know that genre of person well and how they disparage the average person for their 'crass materialist consumerism' yet all the while they are obsessed with material things, status, and are subject to all the same issues of substance abuse, relationship breakdowns and petty rivalries. In other words, they are just crass materialist consumers - just another pissant with a little secret...

In the past it was often necessary to keep certain things concealed to avoid persecution and censorship. That is no longer as much of a problem, but if we are to read and understand these works it is necessary to read between the lines and make connections. We no longer have to worry about explicit discussions of atheism or nihilism either, at least in most communities. The cat is out of the bag.

Are there still reasons to write or speak esoterically? Perhaps, but in my interpretive practice I do just the opposite. I attempt to bring things into the light. — Fooloso4

Wow, that's the basis for a massive conversation right there. Thanks. This is probably not the right place.

But just quickly: can you sketch how ones read between the lines? I've read some of what you have written about Plato - in what sense can this (between the lines) be applied to his understanding of the good, for instance? You seem to prefer a secular reading. Is that a modern cultural reading, or are you making some additional judgements?

I hear you; for a lay person this just sounds like a more academic version of, "I'm better than you because I know secrets". Essentially this:

Philosophers are traditionally and for the most part elitist. They regard mankind as children that they must hide the truth from. — Fooloso4

Secular culture is deeply inimical to that kind of ethos, we expect, indeed demand, that whatever is worth knowing is 'in the public domain', that it can be explained 'third person', so to speak. Hence the tension between traditionalism and modernity, often resulting in the association of traditionalism with reactionary politics. — Wayfarer

Fair point. As someone whose values and worldview are secular I agree that this is essentially a debate between competing cultures (apologies to CP Snow). The problem is that the values of secularity and those of esoterica are often held by those who insist that not only is their understanding superior, but the other worldview is detrimental to the human race.

It's hard for me to look at "great" men like FDR and MLK without being totally disgusted by the affairs they had. Is it really that hard to be faithful to your wife? No, it's not. Should we even platform men (and women) who cheated on their spouses, no matter what good things they did? — RogueAI

I don't see what fidelity has to do with whatever achievements a 'great' figure can achieve. Take J Krishnamurti, the famous 20th century sage. He was unfaithful and vain, but his dialogues about freedom and spirituality remain imperishable classics of their kind.

:up:

The same will apply for a plethora of other things: ranging from the more ubiquitous notions of goodness, and justice, and the aesthetic to far more concrete things such as whether the romantic partner that states they love you in fact so does.

Not finding these many other issues either inconsequential or else somehow unreal, I then don't find this test-based reasoning to be sufficient in justifying a renunciation of the esoteric (in any of its various senses). — javra

Well, I'm a skeptic, so I find notions of justice and goodness pretty nebulous too. It's fairly easy to tell with a partner whether they are there for you or not. There are key indicators. But nothing in life is certain. But that's not the same as saying everything has an unknown status.

But the esoteric seems to go a step further. Justice and goodness are pragmatic navigation points in most people's lives and we encounter instantiations of them daily. The esoteric remains inscrutable. But maybe Jack can elucidate what he means.

The whole area of myth, as stories unfolding in human life, is extremely important. — Jack Cummins

As someone who has found myth underwhelming I find this hard to agree with. I'm not saying you are wrong (there's a lot of stuff I avoid in life; sport, popular music, myth, stand-up comedy) but why is myth important?

In this way, the ideas of the esoteric may involve more of a demystification rather than clarification of ideas and understanding. — Jack Cummins

What would be a tangible example of what you have in mind?

So, I open this thread about esoteric ideas and thinking, especially with the question of how far such traditions of thought may obscure or elucidate areas of the unknown in understanding human consciousness and its relationship with philosophy — Jack Cummins

What would be useful would be to avoid general abstract statements of affirmation on behalf of the esoteric and for someone to present a specific instance of the esoteric providing a measurable benefit or the kind of elucidation you refer to. As opposed to the poetic and symbolic, which can be provided through music, nature, architecture, sex or verse, etc.

The esoteric can on the whole not be tested so how do you propose we demonstrate its efficacy and how do we determine the good from the fallacious?

What are the central aspects of hidden knowledge and potential.'secret' aspects, including the political? — Jack Cummins

Hidden knowledge is often where the powerless go to find strength and solace (a Rabbi once told me this was the power behind the Kabbalah's use although I imagine this may be a controversial claim). Also popular with those who wish to think they are better than the average person because ‘they know the secret’. They are closer to the Truth. This is the fertile delta of conspiracy theories and again there’s often a connection to people who feel left out and a bit lost in the world - QAnon anyone?

Everyone is doing their best, some people's best is dangerous and thus society tends to lock them up. — Vaskane

That's for sure.

I'm sorry to hear about your pain. Here are some examples that might be helpful. — YiRu Li

I fixed the problem with some regular special exercises for back problems. No pain for several years.

I never take advice from an internet forum. Thanks anyway.

Acupuncture doesn't work for almost anything other than mild pain (and, given its prevalence in media, placebo). — AmadeusD

I tried acupuncture 3 times via well regarded practitioners here (back pain). Useless. I know anecdote isn’t proof but no one I know who has tried it for anything serious finds it does not work.

Again, why can Philosophical Pessimism be dismissed as temperament based, but any other axiological debates like ethics and politics are fair game? — schopenhauer1

Well, I would say that preferences in ethics and politics are significantly about disposition too. I would not say this to dismiss them, I would say this to highlight the role of personal sense-making factors like personality, upbringing, culture and all those contingent influences that make us who we are. I also think that people gravitate towards arguments that support their preferences. These arguments can certainly be debated and explored. I think this is about all we have - a conversation that coalesces around personal experience, preferences and the values and beliefs which result from these.

I think it really is a matter of disposition, and that globally pessimistic and optimistic dispositions may even simply be driven by different brain chemistries. It is common enough for humans to rationalize their own experiences and mind-sets after the fact. — Janus

I tend to agree. I hasten to add that while I am a pessimist I am not someone who complains or is constantly negative. I hate that shit. I tend to be cheerful. Another genetic contribution, perhaps.

Probably it's often a case of thinking: There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.

I have come to consider that the matter of 'gods or not gods' is one of personal preference, a bit like sexual orientation. We are attracted to certain ideas aesthetically and because they fit in with our general sense making of the world. If stuff doesn't fit it is discarded and sometimes feared or resented. A lot of the more formal arguments seem to come post hoc. Which does not mean that they aren't important, just that they aren't primary.

:up:

Agree.

It seems to me that this difference of disposition speaks to there being no fact of the matter as to whether life is worth living. — Janus

I remember seeing an interview with Gore Vidal (who had an extraordinary life), he said that there were plenty of golden moments over his long and successful life (he was round 70 then) but he would never want relive a single one of them. I found this fascinating and immediately understood.

An excellent response.

I suggest that there are no laws of logic, and that what we call laws of logic are actually incorrigible intuitions about how language tends to relate to reality. Such intuitions arise from pattern recognition which occurs in the neural networks of our evolved brains

Yeah, could be. Certainly more plausible than a magic man from where I sit. You are also right to question the supposed inherent meaning of regularities. (in the thread)

I generally find presuppositionalists more sad than funny — wonderer1

Yeah, many of them are just parroting the arguments without fully understanding them and are terrible.

I'll provide some more quotes to this effect, but I think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is the closest to a "model" for the modern man's (supposed) antidote to such generalized ideas on "EXISTENCE". That is to say, whatever your beliefs this way or that, it is about peak experiences that make it worth it.. One must provide safety, security, social bonds, physical needs, and then at the top is supposedly "self-actualization", which I gather to be "peak experiences". One is being true to one's values (Nietzschean-esque).. I imagine the world-travelling, hobbyist, sports-enthusiast, mountain-climbing, civic duty participating, citizen, supposedly reveling in the balance between skill, challenge, preference, and aptitude.. The perfect balancer of personal interests and social interests.. Flow states are had readily and easily. One is able to express one's talents, etc. — schopenhauer1

What you write here has often interested me. I am a person with limited interests and no hobbies. I find most activities boring - from travel to sport. I am not a 'suck the marrow out of life' style person. I am happy to sit in a room and read or listen to music or just potter about. I have no interest in setting challenges and consider the vulgar Nietzschean-esquee pretentions to be the opposite of my own inclinations. I am quite happy to loiter around the foothills of Maslow and avoid the peaks. I like predictability and quiet. Now I say this as someone who had some wild times when younger - booze, women, lawlessness - which ultimately got tired. I think hobbies and sport and travel are all distractions from meaninglessness. We used to have religion for this and now it's Instagram and TikTok. I don't think it makes much difference.

'God is the necessary condition of intelligibility and guarantees reason on earth, but he allows humans to use reason for good or ill, via freewill.'
— Tom Storm
That's very odd. Reason is supposed to guarantee the truth of its conclusions. The truth might be used for good or ill, but that's not the fault of reason, is it? — Ludwig V

I'm no expert, but it goes something like this. How does reason guarantee its own truth - this is circular and offers no meaningful explanation. The presup might start with the question, why does reason (this mysterious, immaterial phenomenon) work so well? Why do the laws of logic - identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle - work, seemingly everywhere and for eternity? If the world is just blind physical forces behaving, how do such mysterious laws work and allow us to created math, languages and reasoning?

The presup will argue that we can't really know that the laws of logic work if they do not have a foundation. If they are just floating in a meaningless reality, how can they function? Is reason perhaps just a kind of gibberish?

The laws of logic work, they conclude, because they reflect the consistent and orderly nature of God's creation. How else could we guarantee the truth of these laws in an inherently meaningless and godless universe?

The best an atheist can say is that the logical absolutes work - it's a presupposition which can be continually demonstrated and there need be no additional presupposition to guarantee them. Particularly not god/s which has/have yet to be demonstrated as existing.

It's fun to me because presups in tackling the use of reason to disprove god, twist it around and use god to disprove reason. (Which I don't find convincing but do find ingenious.)

It's kind of a variation of the argument by design, with reason sitting in place of a tree or bird.

You can have a guarantee of intelligibility that is not a God. — Lionino

Good point. Some people have even suggested alien intelligence instead of god. Others accept Platonism.

I think that would be epicureanism, yes? Gods exist but they don't care and can't bother.
Non-religious theism is just... theism without any dogma. — Lionino

I agree. But not just no dogma, no relationship with the creator at all. An impersonal god. Many of the America founding fathers, like Jefferson were deists. It was fashionable in the 17th century.

You're probably right. I'm not a big fan of speculative thinking, so I cheerfully rule myself out of a lot of discussions.

I hear you. For me most things revolve around the ordinary. What practical difference does a belief make? For me deism makes none. Setting aside the small problem of inferring a creator from poor evidence.

:up: My issue with deism is that if all we have is an inferential relationship with some creator with whom we have no relationship and who asks nothing of us, why care? It seems functionally no different to living without a god. Some being created the world and fucked off… it leaves us with nothing to do but get on with it.

It also interests me that among the former Christians I’ve met who are now atheists, the journey is often: Christian to deist to atheist. It’s like deism is the faded remnant of theism that can be readily discarded. One goes from wheelchair to walking stick to walking unaided - if you’ll forgive the vulgar secular bias.

What do you think of Ligotti's analysis of the pessimist? I actually think this is more a critique of the optimist, but indirectly. — schopenhauer1

Yes, he's really tacking both.

Can't find much to disagree with. I think a lot of folk are afraid of pessimism and work hard to deny their own tendencies in this area just in case it makes things even worse. Whistling in the dark is a popular human reaction.

Will there ever be an end of the line in our progress toward the
alleviation of human misery when people can honestly say, “This is
without doubt the time produce children”? — Ligotti- CATHR

This raises another question for me. Is life worth living even if suffering is almost eliminated? Let's say there are no wars and there is economic and political equality and medicine can cure most diseases. What then? I think one still has to face the question is living worth all the work and effort? All the psychological exertion. I've had a fortunate life (so far) with minimal suffering, but if I had the choice would I want to do it all again or not be born at all? I suspect I would choose the latter. I think this may well be dispositional as Ligotti suggests. I have always been reluctant to universalise my own tendencies and acknowledge how many people who have suffered intensely still 'love life' and cherish their time.

Really ironic, that the guy that filled the supreme court, the guy that's being treated by the legal system with kiddie gloves, the guy who has immense legal privilege because of his wealth, is being perceived as being wronged by the "bought legal system". — flannel jesus

America is the land of irony. But what you say is only ironic if one shares your frame.

Why he's the favourite, nobody really can tell - it has to do with the way he's captured the grievances of a large section of the electorate who generally hate politics and politicians and feel that he represents them and who for various reasons buy into his delusions. — Wayfarer

Seems to me that many Trump supporters think that the system is utterly corrupt, so for them it takes a brash vulgarian, a maverick outsider like Trump to stick it to the system's gatekeepers. The fact that Trump is hated by the media and by corporate elites and intellectuals is part of his attraction. He has the right enemies. Including the 'bought' legal system which is manipulated by his denigrators. He's a kind of outlaw hero now. And for many of the more reasonable Republicans, at least he isn't Biden and part of the soft-cock liberal, virtue signalling establishment which they feel has abraded and perverted the real America built by the Greatest Generation, etc...

Interesting. Do you get deism? I may be missing something but it seems a banal position. "Yes, I think there is a creator, but we have no knowledge of this being and it has taken no interest in us, so all we can say is..." Deism seems like a soft-core response to the argument from contingency. What is the point of it?