Thanks, I'll look into this futher. It's challenging stuff.

Hillel’s admonition leaves out the crucial question of how to ground determinations of justice and injustice. — Joshs

Bully for Hillel for being a non-relativist, but this doesn’t magically turn labels like crime , murder, harm and hate into universally transparent meanings. — Joshs

Interesting. I see where you are coming from. Do you think it is possible to formulate any general principles that can be used to assess actions? Or is this a pointless exercise?

When will the human race move beyond such nonsense Tom? — universeness

We seem to be hard wired to worship authority figures, from deities to certain former presidents. This impulse seems to have a powerful hold but perhaps can be overcome with time. The god idea is something that has never made sense to me, even as a small child. So I am an inadequate atheist in a sense - I never found the notion of gods coherent, attractive or useful, even before I heard any of the arguments. I wish I could say I had a deconversion experience, but it never happened.

Right. And if humans generate meaning and value, and humans are part of the universe, then in an important way the universe generates meaning and value. It is clearly not completely hostile to the existence of such things. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment - sense making (inventing narratives) is what we do. We still love our metanarratives. I would simply say all meaning is contingent and tentative - an ongoing, ever changing conversation. I make no claims about the universe (whatever that is).

Plus, if the Fine Tuning Problem and related issues give us reason to think the consciousness is not only in some way fundamental (irreducible) but also not contingent, then the "valuelessness," claim seems to run into further problems. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I leave speculations about consciousness (and QM) to others (preferably those with expertise). Whether any of those speculations are warranted or not, I can't say. I know it is contested space (from Thomas Metzinger to Bernadro Kastrup) and we seem to be waiting for a breakthrough.

Which leads to the question: "if the universe necessarily produces all this meaning and value, in what way is it meaningless and valueless?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I do not say the universe is meaningless, that would be a claim I can't justify. As I said:

I don't think humans ever arrive at or know some external to self 'reality'. As you say, humans inhabit a world of their own making, a function of our experience, our cognitive apparatus and shared subjectivity. Do we need more than this? — Tom Storm

However, I would regard seeking an objective meaning as a natural impulse — Showmee

Sure, but everything humans do is natural by definition. From mass murder to painting pictures of Krishna. Given the hold transcendental narratives (religions) still have on people all over the world, is it any wonder many are still caught up quests for objective meaning? I suspect we may leave behind this impulse at some point.

Or as skeptics like to remind us - New York is real. New York appears in Spiderman comics. This doesn't mean that Spiderman is real. :wink:

God is just an idea that seems to function as a foundation but without objective reality. — JuanZu

Agree. The problem with theism however is that it doesn't provide an objective moral system or set of values. As is evidenced even within the one religion (let's say Christianity) wherein believers all following the word of god, commonly profess very different moral positions on everything from abortion to euthanasia, the role of women to gay rights, capital punishment to drug law reform.

We have a chaotic Christianity all over the place in these and other issues, all convinced they are following some objective view of a god whose identity and qualities they can't even agree on. I think it's a bit of a furphy when anyone claims that god provides us with a foundational guarantee of anything - instead it seems to be down to subjective interpretation in the name of an ever shifting, ever changing, incoherent deity.

Ok. I don't see it as being all that challenging. Risk is assessed to reduce or prevent harm - one such harm is spending money where it need not be spent. This is always subject to a values. Saving life, preventing injury, damage, etc, are worthwhile ethical goals. Often it is the crudity of the tool, or the lack of training of the worker, or inadequate processes that may cause unintended injury. That said, I would still separate eligibility assessment criteria from a risk mitigation framework.

Henceforth, there remains only one question to be answered, and that is: does the meaningless disposition of reality necessarily lead to the negation of the worth of living? Should individuals universally reject the pursuit of purpose in a world devoid of values and instead prefer death? — Showmee

I don't see how no transcendent meaning matters very much. Humans will always generate meaning and values and reasons for participating in life. The question 'is life worth living' is not an abstraction - the answer is found in what you do with your day. A nihilist may have a very rich and rewarding life and, ironically, a happier life than the theist, who may live in quaking fear of divine judgement and understands misery to be god's will.

Life can be meaningful, but reality cannot. — Showmee

All we have is life, this is our reality. I don't think humans ever arrive at or know some external to self 'reality'. As you say, humans inhabit a world of their own making, a function of our experience, our cognitive apparatus and shared subjectivity. Do we need more than this?

I am aware that you are in Australia and the politics of which I am speaking is in England. — Jack Cummins

Yep. We borrow a lot of welfare fraud prevention strategies from the UK. We have an equivalent to the NHS and the Jobseeker allowance. We run equivalent scam detection and debt reclamation strategies.

The assessment processes for benefits has been found to be a contributory factor in some case scenarios of suicide. — Jack Cummins

Assessment processes are closer to eligibility criteria mechanisms than true risk assessment.

We had 'mutual obligation' policies here ( to claim overpayment of welfare welfare) under the Conservatives that caused numerous suicides. There has been a public enquiry into it here. People were being targeted who did not in fact receive any overpayments and were being hounded for money. Erroneously as it turned out.

So, I would argue that the underlying basis of risk assessment is bound up with political values and biases.. — Jack Cummins

Will yes, but isn't almost everything in public life down to political values and biases? I would think in essence risk assessment stems from the value that all human life matters and with it the expectation of accountability from funded services that are entrusted to take care of others. At its crudest, if people are dying or being harmed then we can see the 'bias' and 'value' of preserving life and doing no harm have been transgressed.

In particular, risk assessment is being used in England for assessing fraud amongst benefit recipients. — Jack Cummins

There is a value here that public resources should not be squandered. The right is generally more prone to 'balanced budget' discourse than the left. But in the neoliberal realm most governments are susceptible to cost cutting based on the value that spending public money (tax revenue) on 'wasteful' enterprises is wrong. Voters tend to agree. Is there a risk management framework they are using in this process or is this more about a stringent eligibility criteria?

:up: I like it. A much more interesting frame.

How wealthy would the wealthiest person be in your ideal society?

Where would their wealth come from? — Captain Homicide

My ideal society would be orientated around a different value system to our own and the idea of personal wealth, in terms of money or belongings, would be obsolete. Access to decent housing, health services and good food would be available to all, with no special rules and privileges for some at the expense of a less privileged class.

Whose awareness is greater: the monarch butterfly's, — Patterner

The assumption would be that ours is. If by awareness we mean metacognition - which is generally the starting point from these sorts of discussions.

At what point did our ancestors not have the capacity for wisdom and understanding the true nature of reality? At what point did they have the capacity, but simply hadn't yet thought of it? — Patterner

My view is that humans do not have the capacity to access a true nature of reality. I think this is a remnant of Greek philosophy. We seem to generate stories that describe our experince as we see it and some of these narratives are more useful for certain purposes than others. But people differ on this. I see human knowledge as an evolving conversation which is contingent and subject to change over time, not necessarily leading to progress.

I didn't say it's an improvement. Just that it's more aware. — Patterner

If that's the case 'more awareness' would seem to have no (or little) significance.

There may be things we are not aware of that other creatures are. — Patterner

We have been using awareness in different ways. When people talk of a 'higher awareness' in consciousness they tend to mean something loftier (e.g., wisdom and understanding the true nature of reality), what you're referring to here as 'awareness' is more like different frame of reference.

Ok. For me this sounds more like a matter of quantity rather than quality.

Our awareness is currently greater than that of our ancestors who lived at any point in the past, or any other awareness on the planet. — Patterner

I'm reasonably certain a lot of people will find this problematic. Is the modern mind an improvement on the pre-modern? How would you measure improvement? More reason, more science, less superstition, less religion? The die hard secular humanists will agree to this.

OK. But then why does it matter? What's your demonstration of 'growing'?
— Tom Storm
There are quite a few more of us now than there used to be. — Patterner

I'm assuming this is intended as a joke and it is kind of funny.

Sorry to hear that gloomy outlook. It seems to focus on the small percentage of bad stuff that the media calls "news" — Gnomon

I don't think this is correct. Climate change is not a 'small percentage of bad stuff' it's a significant ontological concern. Who is talking about 'news'? And that’s a fairly cynical view of media.

I am neither pessimistic or optimistic - neither approach seems apropos to me. I am simply aware.

Ironically, some people seem to think that cynicism makes you appear smarter than the happy-go-lucky sheep. — Gnomon

I'm not sure about that, but I do know that people use philosophy in this way. I wonder why you have introduced cynicism when nothing I have written is cynical.

Evolutionary Progress?
How could anyone who accepts an evolutionary view of life deny that progress has occurred? — Gnomon

Why did you drop this question into your response? When did evolution come up? When did progress come up? Are you on a kind of automatic pilot of pedagogical didacticism? :wink:

With these premises or 'background', I personally believe that if I committed suicide, people would not care at all. — javi2541997

I would care a lot, Javi. And I'm sure others here would too. You are a valued member here, my friend. :smile:

In whose eyes are we a mere speck, other than our own? In the absence of any perspective there's no scale against which to make the comparison against which our physical size may be judged. — Wayfarer

Indeed. On this we can agree.

No. I'm saying we're a 'growing awareness'. Significance doesn't enter into it. — Patterner

OK. But then why does it matter? What's your demonstration of 'growing'?

So are you saying subject to human judgment humans are significant? :wink:

Was "awareness" a property or quality of the nascent cosmos? If not, how did sentience & consciousness emerge from an explosion of space & time & matter & energy? Is it not reasonable to say that there is a "growing awareness" or that the "cosmos has, eventually become aware of itself", only in the last few millennia of evolution? Is it possible that Awareness evolved, along with Life and Mind, from an insentient & lifeless state of fecund oblivion? — Gnomon

No idea. But all I can say is that any judgments about this are human and therefore limited and subject to a myriad of biases and presuppositions. My own speculative tendencies wouldn't consider human life to be significant enough to be rated as a 'growing awareness'. Perhaps a growing malignancy if we consider pollution and climate change. We know so little about anything that I don't think we even have the capacity to gauge just what is remarkable or important, except by quotidian human standards.

If the material universe popped into existence with a "bang", can we imagine that, like a planted seed, it came pre-set with un-realized Potentials that took eons to mature (actualize) into the complex cosmos we humans are now scanning with our far-seeing technological eye-extensions? — Gnomon

Not my area of expertise or interest, I'm afraid.

Speculation. Sure, maybe, anything is possible I suppose. But we only know what we know. And that is, we are self-aware, and not much else is. — Patterner

Indeed. I have no specific confidence in any metaphysical models. I don't subscribe to philosophical naturalism or accounts of higher awareness. The best we can say is that humans generate opinions and some seem to 'check out' and other's can't be assessed.

I think the idea of a meaningless universe into which humans are an accidental byproduct is very specific to modernity. — Wayfarer

Which doesn't mean it is wrong. But I wouldn't make the claim it is meaningless - how would we know? I would however say that meaning is hard to discern and in the eye of the beholder and given that we are meaning making creatures, it never takes long for humans to create a narrative (generally based on the zeitgeist) to account for our interactions with and place in reality.

His preferred tentative solution is what he calls ‘teleological naturalism’, meaning the theory that the natural order is biased in some way towards the emergence of life and consciousness, as more-than-likely directions or potentials of development. He does not develop this theory but merely indicates that it might at least be along the right lines. — The Universe is Waking Up

I can see how following certain inferences would lead some people into this space. I am more cautious. I can't explain why some people enjoy folk dancing... how can I account for anything to do with intrinsic purpose in the universe?

I think the case can be made that at least esoteric spirituality presents this kind of understanding in symbolic or mythological terms. Why symbolic or mythological? Because it is a very difficult thing to discern! — Wayfarer

I think this is a useful insight.

Is that empathy a learned response to maintain group cohesion? I’m not saying I believe that’s the case, but biologically, is empathy a symptom of that cohesion? — Daniel Duffy

Given we are a social species and tribal apes, our survival and our strength has been collaboration and cooperation, so perhaps we could argue that empathy provides strong evolutionary benefits. Where you sit on this will depend upon your presuppositions. If you believe in transcendent realities (a cosmic consciousness or god surrogate) you might be inclined to believe that empathy is from a divine spark which animates human behavior.

What is the alternative? — Wayfarer

I have no idea. But this doesn't sound like a good argument in favor of something. Isn't this close to an appeal to ignorance?

If we are throwing around metaphysical potentialities, why couldn't the universe be entirely self-aware? Could it not be that it's humans alone who are in the dark? I don't understand how we get to arrive at something so specific as the universe is gaining self-awareness. What exactly does self-awareness consist of when it comes to a universe (I am assuming by universe you mean something more like cosmic consciousness)? Is there an end result - all meaning is assimilated and converges and 'bang' a new stage in consciousness commences?

The question of 'meaning' is an interesting one. My intuition is that meaning is something pertaining to human beings and sense making. How does the notion of meaning apply outside of contingent beings?

I sense a fresh thread on this.

The serious reason is that I believe there is a reason for existence, but that is a religious or philosophical conviction, not a scientific argument. — Wayfarer

Why specifically the formulation of growing self-awareness? Is this Vedanta? Of all the cosmologies and philosophies available, why that particular account or focus?

We naturally try to conform to the crowd, strength in numbers etc. — Daniel Duffy

Or, we have the gift of empathy and find ourselves 'assimilating' in as a sign of respect and love.

Huh? How did you establish that the universe (whatever that is) is some kind of entity and that self-awarenes applies to it?

Descartes refers to Everydayman as philosophically unsophisticated, Hume refers to him as vulgar, Kant just calls him common. — Mww

Guilty as charged. I tend to prefer the appellation ‘unremarkable’.

Yes it is. Thanks. I was wondering about Schop's reading.

That feeds into the meme you will sometimes encounter that conscious sentient beings are the Universe become self-aware. — Wayfarer

Not a criticism or poke in any way, but is there any reason you can posit for why the universe would need to become self-aware? What does 'self-awareness' mean when it comes to the universe? This formulation seems like a human projection: the Delphic injunction, 'know thyself' applied at a cosmic scale.

No prob, but it goes without saying…..any comment on Kant is only an opinion at least, and a best guess at most. I mean, when you come across sentences half a page long, you’re bound to miss the mark sooner or later. — Mww

Nicely put. Which has non-philosophers like me wary of even trying to make sense of him (or any of the significantly complex thinkers, Heidegger, for instance). The chances of developing a useful reading without more formal instruction would seem negligible. And even then...

Are there readings of Kant by academics you consider to be wrong or misconceived? Are there schools of Kant?

The truth is, contrary to common assumptions, there are many professors who are ignorant and close-minded. Who just repeat whatever party-line they swallowed however long age. — Fooloso4

I met with the head of philosophy at my university back in 1988. I has been somewhat annoyed by the approach taken over the year, which was essentially telling us how to think. He laughed and said, 'Son, you're not here to learn about philosophy, you're here to parrot back to us that which we think is correct. If you want to learn philosophy, leave this course.' Which I promptly did 30 minutes later. I never regretted the choice. Anyway now I'm here, sniffing around to see what I might have missed.

That's it. I used to love Crunchies too. But some boutique confectioners make their own version of this product and the honeycomb is thicker, heavier and richer than the Cadbury version. In my time, I could easily eat a kilo of the stuff.

The stuff they put in a Violet Crumble candy bar? — Nils Loc

Yep - that's originally the Aussie version, I think. They are a bit denser than the Crunchie bar.

Don't know. I think honeycomb is close enough to candy on its own.

Writing allows one to talk to people without giving them the capacity to reply — Metaphysician Undercover

Good point and has been the case. But often the letters and on line comments, emails, tweets and phone calls are overwhelming, also invitations to defend your thesis in debate on radio or TV, can soon mean contending with a multiplicity of replies, more than the average person would ever encounter.

Sponge candy? A terrible name. We tend to know it Rocky Road or honeycomb toffee. In the days when I ate confectionary I used to love it.

Although I agree that pauses and length are very considered in plays, I start to wonder if written language has musicality or not, or if it is just monotonous... — javi2541997

The writing I most enjoy has a poetry and musicality and playfulness that transcends or transforms the material - I am thinking of Nabokov, Edith Wharton, Gore Vidal, George Elliot, Anthony Burgess. It's this melodious playfulness, the unexpected; the 'war against cliché' as Martin Amis described it, that keeps me interested. Plots don't often interest me. I am much more interested in how things are told. The writerly magic is often in the execution, not the narrative for me. Language is also like jewelry or a shiny toy when used with some creativity and vitality.

I suffered the same fear when Fosse was a kid and he ran away from class because he was afraid of standing in class, with the teacher and the mates looking at him. — javi2541997

A lot of people are drawn to a rich fantasy life because of their social phobia. Many writers seem to be drawn to the written word because it is a way of being social without needing to be directly with people. I was a writer for some years (newspaper and magazine feature articles, reviews, op eds) and it can be very seductive to drop 'bombs' via prose and not be there for when they go off. In writing, you can say what you need to say safely and carefully, with time for preparation, in a way that many could never do in person, in conversation.

”Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.”
– The commandment — mentos987

I can see the appeal in this and I find this frame interesting.

Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. — Joshs

I've heard this criticism of the Golden Rule frequently over the years and it makes sense. I have generally interpreted the Golden Rule as to treat other's preferences and values with respect, as we would want our preferences and values treated. In other words, more of a celebration of difference than a 'one size fits all.'

However, your "guess" is also a conjecture, and may not apply to specific situations. — Gnomon

But that’s my point. All we have is guesses, no matter who you are.

I mostly agree with your other points.