But others argue that thrownness has more to do with how the future comes toward us than how the past constrains us. In other words, thrownness is our creative muse, whispering in our ear, opening up new worlds of possibility. Even what we consider to be autonomously willed choice is something we are thrown into. — Joshs

I've never heard this take on thrownness before. Interesting.

I always understood thrownness as a limitation or boundary that might impact upon our anticipatory sense making. Are you suggesting the more salient dimension to this is how we are thrown into adaptation?

I'm new here and from Australia, where philosophy is a non-subject. — Rob J Kennedy

Welcome

Not sure about that. There are a number of Australians here, including me. The others know more than I do about philosophy. Philosophy has come up a lot in discussions I've had over the past 30 years, but I guess a lot of this is comes down to where you live and who you kick around with.

Is human biology considered to be one part of human essence? — Rob J Kennedy

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean is the nature of what is human constrained by our biology?

I've been long interested in the "existence precedes essence" debate — Rob J Kennedy

It was a debate back in the 60's-70's; is it back in fashion? I'm assuming you are referring to Sartre here.

The idea (if I remember correctly) being that people are born into a world and have to make choices, creating their own meaning. Which means that humans do not have a fixed nature or essence they have to follow.

So is your question are humans subject to biological imperatives which override their ability to make choices as per Sartre? Is biology essentialism? Do we have a nature that defines us? Sartre would have said no.

So, if we consider biology as a part of our essence (I'm not stating that it is), doesn't essence precede existence as our biology is determined before birth? — Rob J Kennedy

Maybe Heidegger is more helpful frame as he posits the idea of thrownness. We are "thrown" into existence, born into a specific time, place, and cultural context, without any control over these matters. We are also human animals, with our own experiences which powerfully shape who we are, how we make sense of things and what we choose. We then have to make the best of it all, subject to contingent factors.

The great thing about a hard run is the feeling you get after you shower. Your whole body feels utterly new, like it’s been taken apart and re-assembled, in a good way. — Wayfarer

This made me contemplate running for the first time in my life. I ran to catch a bus once or twice in the 1980's... Too late for me now, but what a wonderful description.

Congratulations on getting there. But I have to say that there doesn't seem to be much benefit in being an Ubermensch if your account is definitive. Can you explain what the benefits might be?

I know this Schopenhauer quote well. But does it stand up to scrutiny? Is there an evidential basis for it? A priori I would have thought it more likely that the opposite holds: that intelligence enables a greater understanding of one's pain, which might in turn mitigate its emotional effects — mcdoodle

No idea if it stands up. It's one of those observations that can't really be tested empirically. I think you're right that the opposite may also be true. I'm not sure of the evidence for this either.

I suspect that a sophisticated or intelligent mind conjures all sorts of ways to magnify suffering, worry about things which may not happen, speculative anxieties galore; and is probably less likely to gain succor from off the rack solutions (folk mythologies, religions) which may appease a less sophisticated mind. But I recognize this is all pretty woolly. I do know my friend John (who is a Catholic priest) is fond of saying that the minds of the simple faithful are always more at ease about the state of the world than those of the more deeply read and considered Catholic. Setting aside some implicit elitism in this, I guess the simple are often certain, while the more nuanced thinkers may be more prone to doubt and festering - the building blocks of suffering and pain. Thoughts?

Have you heard the one about Schrodinger's cat? Ridiculous! how anyone can be scientist after that is beyond me. — unenlightened

Absolutely ridiculous! Science is clearly nonsense and more fool you for even suggesting it might be useful.

Sorry Chet I am unable to make sense of your answer to me. Might be best if I bow out.

I find it to be 'intelligent'! Adam and Eve ate the apple, marking The Beginning of Sin. Does intelligence cause inequality? — YiRu Li

It's an allegorical or fictional story about obeying god and the consequences of not doing so. Yahweh being a Mafiosa-style, don't-fuck-with me deity. This is a story that has nothing to offer me personally. Me being a crass, contemporary, secular humanist type who is comfortable living in the present era and holding Western worship to be pointless nonsense. :wink:

Ha! I try never to be sarcastic. Your response was helpful and resonated.

:up:

Everytime I see a mention of Trump, I am reminded of several Buddhists who are his avid fans. It's a peculiar combination of being fluent in an arcane religion devoted to the complete cessation of suffering, and to do so in an obscure ancient language, and yet be steeped in such populism as Trump's. I can't quite make sense of it. — baker

Now that is interesting. Do you have any theories why he appeals to them?

No one can crack the automobile/oil stranglehold, as it is part-and-parcel of the modern economy since the early 1900s. It is entrenched fully and inextricably. It would literally be a social revolution if everything was interconnected through various high speed rails with little use of the personal automobile. — schopenhauer1

Well said. Yep, the car and the world we have created to facilitate our dependence on it is pretty dreadful. I've long disliked cars and our addiction to them. I have often lived without one and recently got rid of another one. Now I am a public transport commuter again. PT in my city is reasonably good. It's a shame suburbs and outer regions are often designed with an assumption that everyone will need a car. I made a decision a few years ago that I would never live anywhere where I couldn't walk easily to amenities and shops.

A person cannot be evil. Only their choices are. Likewise a person cannot be good. Only their choices are. — Chet Hawkins

There is no such thing as a person. Only choices exist. Discuss...

Why happiness? Surely some people may be happy doing the wrong thing, or may be happy in suffering. If you are saying that we need to assess what that happiness consists of to demine if it's a 'good' form of happiness, then you are saying we need something external to happiness to determine if our happiness is the 'right kind'.

Of course one virtue of the good is forgiveness. The wise forgive everything and as near to perfect in forgiveness as can be chosen. — Chet Hawkins

How do you know? Sounds like a value from Christian religion. It's a presupposition; how would you demonstrate this?

I'd like to also conjure, BC and @Tom Storm and to wax brightly in the dim night of the black Locrian stage of madness.

After reading these passages, and your reflex to say, "That's just your opinion, man" bubbles up to the black miasmic surface of your thought-forms, what is value and axiology in light of pain, suffering, and the awareness thereof? — schopenhauer1

Sorry?

I haven't been following this thread. But I agree that life is a bucket of shit and that there's a menu of distractions or tools we can use to try to override the void and the suffering.

It is this idea of something wholly different in the human evolution, something "uncanny", that I would like to explore. The main philosopher he draws parallels to is Zapffe. Zapffe's themes are similar in that he thinks that humans have an "excess" of self-consciousness, that though allows us to survive in the ways we do, brings with it the existential excess of being too aware. And that over-abundance of awareness is really what separates humans from the rest of nature in the sense that we are existentially divided and torn asunder from the rest of nature in our awareness. Unlike other animals, even clever ones like certain corvids, or domestic animals, or even elephants, dolphins, and apes, we seem to have something totally different in our existential orientation. Whereas Schopenhauer's dissatisfaction personified as "will-to-live" is much more in the "now" and "immediate" and the "being", we are much more in the self-reflected now, the analysis, the planning of the future, the angst, the anxiety, the what ifs and what did I dos, the regret, the isolation, the inability to "turn off" for large portions of time unless dead asleep. We have exited Eden, and to gain some sanity we provide for ourselves stories and narratives, mainly to soothe ourselves that this situation is not so bad, but those are just salves, protective hedging. — schopenhauer1

Sounds reasonable to me. Our reflective speculations and ruminations bring with them additional forms of suffering and dread. Many people accept that that our preference for narratives of transcendent meaning are all attempts to deal with anxiety. Our capacity for metacognitive experince enhances the pain. This observation by Schopenhauer has often resonated with me (is it from The Wisdom of Life?):

Nature shows that with the growth of intelligence comes increased capacity for pain, and it is only with the highest degree of intelligence that suffering reaches its supreme point.

If may be so much easier to endure ideas of negativity in physical comfort and wealth than in conditions of poverty, austerity and physical suffering. — Jack Cummins

That's one of those common sense observations, isn't it? Not sure how accurate it is. Rich people feel a sense of hopelessness and also commit suicide, so there's that.

So, to what extent do pessimism and optimism have a determining role in the conjuring of our own life experiences and circumstances? — Jack Cummins

Some, but one wouldn't want to overstate this. The person who wallows in 'it's all hopeless' is unlikely to overcome their challenges, whether those be great or small. One's attitude and the inferences one makes will have impact upon how one lives. That is obvious. But one can't cure cancer or end war just by positive thinking. Getting out of bed, making plans and taking action is foundational to change or transformation.

Alternatively, to what extent do our experiences and circumstances determine our philosophical outlooks? — Jack Cummins

We are our experiences and circumstances, but how far this extends and what else there is (genes, personality) is an open question.

I hear you. I got lost amongst theosophists, New Age types, mystics, Gnostics, Buddhists and Hindus for much of the 1980's and early 1990's.

[ It’s not hard to find enthusiasts for any kind of therapy or pseudo scientific practice, from crystal channeling to psychic healing.

My experience confirms my conceptual understanding that it is a placebo-based psychological practice with some efficacy around stress and self-understanding but has next-to-next medical efficacy beyond what has been developed along side Western concepts (such as diet and exercise - minus the Qi concept. As metaphor, perhaps). — AmadeusD

Nice. Did you mean ‘next to no’ ?

Pleasure may be possible in the midst of the most bleak views of life. — Jack Cummins

Naturally. Most nihilists I’ve known have been optimistic. I personally don’t see a connection between inherent meaninglessness and despair. I see meaninglessness as opportunity.

Are philosophies which encourage 'hope' and 'positivity' amidst harsh outer circumstances, mere ideologies? — Jack Cummins

Ask a Stoic. :wink:

Despair, and hope, are constructed in subjective and intersubjective ways; this may mean that the spectrum between hope and despair is a continuum. — Jack Cummins

I suspect that some people have a gift for suffering and despair and are attracted to this as a demonstration of authenticity and superior character.

Understanding each from their own perspectives however, can allow you to gain a certain appreciation for that perspective, even if it is drastically different than your own, such that one becomes inspired in the opposite direction. — Vaskane

Is it really possible to understand someone from their perspective and be free of one's own interpretative values and frameworks? How would one go about that?

So, I am asking how do you see the idea of despair, and hope, as philosophical concepts in making sense of the navigation of life possibilities? How may ideas of despair be juggled effectively, to go beyond the deadend of pessimism and thinking? To what extent is nihilism a 'realistic' philosophy or a flawed one? — Jack Cummins

I don't believe nihilism has a necessary connection to despair. With nihilism one can be resolute and cheerful, even if one holds that there's an inherent meaninglessness or lack of objective value in life, existence, and reality. Nihilism would seem to me to be a bulwark against despair in many instances.

I think despair may be fair enough in certain circumstances, where one literally has no hope and no way out.

But generally, if you are feeling despair, you have perhaps bypassed a philosophical understanding of your circumstances and are succumbing to a particular pessimistic interpretation.

Why don't you agree? I believe it's a translation issue. After hearing your perspective on the definition of 'Medical Practice, — YiRu Li

I have not defined medical practice.

The proper justification for a scientific claim is that the methodology used is consistent with the scientific method. I don't know how more clear to say that.

But, if you see Chinese medicine as a cultural or religious practice, like I said, I'll stand back and respect your prayer.

Part of my respect cannot be to suggest that your practices are scientifically valid or that they should be included in a typical doctor's visit, though. — Hanover

Exactly.

Did Westerners experience a similar history? — YiRu Li

Many Westerners don't romanticize their history with mythology like other cultures do - unless they are right-wing. The left seems to focus on critiques and self-loathing.

Technology introduces inequality to society (Iron, Colony, Industrial Revolution) — YiRu Li

No. Inequality is always there. Technology just shows up the fault lines.

Extreme legal systems that end war but cause severe destruction (Communist Party, Cultural Revolution) — YiRu Li

I think you mean authoritarian political systems, not extreme legal systems.

Tao' is Science. Laozi and Zhuangzi were tools for ancient scientists to unravel the mysteries of Science. — YiRu Li

Tao is not a science as I understand it. It might be used to inform science, but it is more like a philosophical or spiritual system.

I have two translations of the Tao Te Ching, but I'm afraid as a modern, secular westerner it just seems like abstract, poetic and circuitous musings of no particular use to me. I am not very interested in metaphorical language and paradoxes.

I have also known several Chinese people over the years who claim that Chinese medicine is unreliable and if they are really sick they will not use it. I would need to see studies on this subject before committing to a view. I have known several people to use Chinese medicine to treat various illnesses. It generally did not work, but in one or two cases it seemed to help. I personally would not use it, but its not a part of my culture. I also would not use naturopathy or faith healing.

I hear you. My own take is that we can say certain actions are 'bad' in a contingent sense - the flourishing of conscious creatures is important to most humans, particularly within intersubjective communities which share values and beliefs. We all tend to agree that killing babies or sexual assault is 'wrong' and this seems largely hard wired into us by experince as a social species (empathy) that seems to be born to nurture and teach. But we also know that killing children and sexual assault are some of the earliest actions which happen in wars and clashes between cultures. Someone is always expendable and not completely human if they are seen as not belonging to the tribe.

One of key challenges with goal setting is the critical question of A - 'achievable'. This generally influences all the other factors. And it's here where people are often bitten in the arse by Time-Bound. They can be unrealistic in what the period they have chosen to achieve a given thing. Many people want to be wealthy and retire at 40. Or be a concert pianist, by the time they are 20, or own a home by the time they are 30. Whatever it might be. People often become slaves to unachievable goals. Most of us shouldn't set our own achievement timeliness based on what a very tiny percentage of remarkable people have done.

Which is why I think the SMART tool recognises that for most goals, a series of factors have to work in tandem for the Time-Bound element to be able to work.

But it is also the case that many people in daily life don't often set goals and don't see the world in those terms. I'm one of these. I just make it up as I go and have done well this way. In my work, however, goal setting and deliverables, KPI's and timelines are a fact of life

That makes total sense. A very interesting frame.

The irony is that various right-wing political options have a better understanding of democracy than anyone else. They understand that democracy is a dog-eat-dog fight and they don't pretend it's anything but that. — baker

It's not all that ironic. Decades ago my father used to say that in a democracy the right have the easiest arguments. Mainly because these positions are often emotional (nationalism, race, freedom, faith, way of life) whereas the left often requires people to understand abstracts (social justice, structural poverty, identity politics, collective responsibility). The left will often struggle to prevail against simplistic answers which lubricate themselves in social Darwinism or 'might is right' and guns. It's hardly surprising that the right have so much traction when they have often been much better and more entertaining in the bar room fights of democracy, while the left, rather than rolling up their sleeves, often seems preoccupied with dissertations on inclusion. Or something like that.

:up: It's fascinating how this discussion has become so protracted and labyrinthine. It's such a small a matter; belief versus knowledge.

It shouldn't be overlooked. It's one standard component of goal setting. Take the SMART goal framework, which is employed by schools, universities, corporations and governments.

SMART goals stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. It is generally thought that we need these 5 elements to effectively achieve a goal. Some versions of SMART have different variations of the acronym, but they basically mean the same.

Yep, as I say, there are some excellent answers and I will continue to use it, but always with some doubts.

As it happened, I asked a similar question two weeks ago.

Me - Is maths the result of human cognitive processes, or is it an external fact in the world?

GPT The question of whether mathematics is a human cognitive process or an external fact of the world is a philosophical and epistemological inquiry that has been debated by scholars for centuries. The two main perspectives on this issue are known as mathematical realism and mathematical anti-realism.

Mathematical Realism:

External Reality: Mathematical realists argue that mathematical entities and truths exist independently of human thought. They believe that mathematical structures and relationships are part of an objective, external reality.

Discovery: According to this view, mathematicians discover mathematical truths rather than inventing them. These truths exist and are waiting to be unveiled through the process of mathematical exploration.

Mathematical Anti-Realism:

Human Construct: Mathematical anti-realists, on the other hand, argue that mathematics is a product of human cognition and is not an inherent aspect of an external reality.
Invention: From this perspective, mathematical concepts are invented by humans to describe and make sense of the world, but they don't have an independent existence apart from human minds.

It's important to note that this debate extends to the nature of abstract objects, such as numbers and mathematical structures. Realists posit that these abstract objects exist, while anti-realists deny their objective existence.

In summary, whether mathematics is considered a human cognitive process or an external fact of the world depends on one's philosophical stance. Both perspectives have their proponents, and the debate continues to be a lively topic in the philosophy of mathematics.

So is self reflection good? Or bad? Or is it always a mix — Benj96

Like most activities, it can be done well or done poorly. The latter can famously result in analysis, paralysis. I think temperamentally some people are more inclined to maroon themselves in narcissistic, directionless soul searching than others. It’s probably also prudent to determine what is self reflection and what is self dramatisation.

I've found ChatGPT to be sometimes excellent but also highly variable and sometimes inaccurate. It attributes quotes to the wrong people, or it makes them up. It gets schools of thought wrong. It sometimes seems to fabricate information about subjects which sound reasonable but does not check out. When you point out such mistakes, it replies, "You're right, I apologize for that." GPT reminds me of a sociopath; superficially charming, but you can sometimes sense the glib emptiness and fakery.

And actually I think that kind of shrug is just the kind of poisonous miasma that Trump emits. — Wayfarer

It's just what it looks like.

I may not matter to the rusted-on Trumpistas, but it will still be objectively critical. And as far as the politics goes - will it be a winning strategy? — Wayfarer

The polls are looking favorable for Trump, so it may well work.

Incidentally, I have met quite a few pro Trump Australians and they are not bogans (rednecks), but generally thoughtful about politics. In their mind civic life and government has become mired in political correctness and is rotten to the core and they really dig the idea of a vulgar mob boss figure like Trump kicking the system about for 4 years. You're right that this inherent cynicism about the status quo is what helps give Trump power. But we live in a cynical age, a fact which a successful candidate can probably harness, so I wonder how useful it is to push back against the zeitgeist. Your Don Quixote avatar may be apropos...

‘Republicans Nominate Secessionist Felon for President’. How’s that going to work out? I mean, I have no idea, but I can’t see Trump ‘cruising to victory’. — Wayfarer

I don't think it will matter. They see the trial as some bullshit political witch-hunt and a significant percentage of voters don't seem to care, so I think full steam ahead Team Trump. I think the game of decency in politics (which was alwasy wafer thin) has evaporated.

To me, relationships are dynamic, mutually conditioning two-way streets. Normal relationships, that is. — baker

I'm not really sure what I am trying to say. I recognize that relationships evolve over time. Or devolve. My original point was that I find people don't really seem to change much over time. In as much as they are always recognizable as variations of themselves. But this is sounding vague and pointless, so I will contemplate the matter some more.

What is truly important is how you live your life. The meaning of an individual life is determined by the quality of that lived life. — George Fisher

You generate a lot more questions with this.

These are not givens. They are expressing assumptions - values and a set of preferences. It may be that it is better to be indifferent.

Whose definition of 'quality' do we use as a basis to make this assessment?

The only hazard to this question is whether it causes you to doubt your belief in the principles that guide your life. — George Fisher

This is surely the job of philosophy - to examine one's flawed ideas and presuppositions, many of which might be unreasonable or harmful. Just because one has principles does not mean they are the right ones. I suspect philosophical inquiry should often be discomforting.

I can hold my own in discussions on theology. However, the older I get though the more I have trouble accepting the various dogmas that religion presents. — George Fisher

Various dogmas or various religions? There are hundreds.

The reason I pursue questions of the meaning of life is that I need something to hang my way of life on. — George Fisher

This sounds like putting the cart before the horse, or is this just the words you have used? Sounds like you have a way of life and are now seeking, perhaps, some ad hoc justification for some value system?

If my life is going to be of value, there has to be meaning in it. I think we are all trying to grab onto meaning so that we can feel confident that we are on the right path. However, it is possible to determine from observation what a proper way of life is. T — George Fisher

I think perhaps the best way is to give up on 'proper' ways of life since this sounds the religion you say you have moved on from.

How do we determine from observation what the proper way of life is?

This can happen even without a God. — George Fisher

The problem with belief in gods is that they do not provide the anchor some think they do. Beliefs in gods do not provide objective ways to live. Since all religions, their sects and individual believers make subjective choices about how they interpret god's will, we can really say that religious meaning is pluralistic and far from certain. Even within the one religion, moral positions vary considerably. It is created like any other meaning, an expression of personal preferences.

Jason Werberloff doesn't drink because he believes he would die through the process of becoming drunk, and a new person born, through the process of becoming sober. I don't take that line, but i find it very interesting. — AmadeusD

As someone who has been drunk more times than I can remember, I have (by that logic) therefore been reborn many thousands of times. All I can say is that I feel no different to my former incarnations - I look the same, I have the same preferences and disposition and memories, pets always seemed to recognise me and no one has noticed an iota of difference. How does one determine when one has actually been reborn? :wink:

All of this reminds me of famous Orwell essay, Politics and the English Language (1946) he writes:

'The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable"...'

Even close to 80 years ago this word was seen as devalued currency. It can be used to describe anyone from a Tory Prime Minister to a supermarket manager. Perhaps the real question of the OP is will America become an authoritarian state, a right wing dictatorship? Of course for my friends in the Left, America has been an authoritarian state for many years, so even this will evoke a range of interpretations and definitional games.

If it's not 'Plato's Theory of Forms'?
Maybe you resonate with the concept of 'Tao'? — YiRu Li

Neither of those resonate with me.

What you said is this -

If a 'giver' acknowledges that poor people also 'belong to' the category of humans, they can feel empathy or compassion towards them.
Alternatively, they may consider the possibility that one day they themselves could face financial struggles. — YiRu Li

This in Western terms generally expresses 1) a human rights perspective and 2) reciprocal altruism.

Although I have not read all the posts here with great care, it seems that some posters, at least, would find the idea of an eternal existence to be tiring and dreary at best, insufferable at worst. For my part, I can imagine being perfectly happy to "carry on" forever. — expos4ever

I think it's down to temperament, this one. Some people think they find the idea exhilarating, others imagine it will be tedious. Generally this probably reflects how you feel about your own life now as a finite creature. Personally, I think even the idea of living to 100 seems pretty awful. Even with good health and minimal challenges. I generally find the older I am, the more self-contained I become and the less interesting life becomes. I have had many experiences, lots of fun and love but frankly, there's only so much of it I want or need. It starts repeating on you. I suspect an appetite for life is a little like an appetite for food. Some people seem to have no off switch and others are more quickly sated.

I agree.