:up: I think we are in agreement more than we apart.

"Free men" who believe the law doesn't apply to them - they feel the system is 'rigged', 'corrupt' or whatever else you can think of - and as a result of this utterly absurd position, offer violence to those attempting to enforce the justice system; — AmadeusD

I know what you mean. I would still be looking for environmental factors to account for this. But perhaps there is also some kind of 'disposition' that accounts for people being susceptible to certain foundational stories or behaviors - but the moment a person's actions become antisocial I suspect there is a more complex story involved. We are, of course, walking right into the antediluvian, nature versus nurture debate and whether there is libertarian free will or not.

Nice talking to you about this. You've given me much to ponder.

In these regular, but not frequent cases, it becomes quite obvious that actually what happened was their parents were perhaps restrictive in a way they didn't like - so from a young age, they formed a ridiculous and misplaced view of their family and reacted as if that was a fact. I'm unsure this is controversial. — AmadeusD

I'm not in a position to demonstrate whether this is accurate or not. I can say it doesn't match my experince. What I have often seen is families of origin with 'official stories' of nurturing and harmony which are untrue. Also quite often, the experiences of abuse are not from immediate family but come from other sources - scoutmasters, priests, school camp instructors, friends, parents, relatives, etc.

With these matters, we generally end up trying to resolve two questions 1) Are some people just bad? 2) To what extent are people responsible for the choices they make? Attempts to address these matters can become a cesspit of cultural politics.

(this may be for another thread, but I like this line, so....) — AmadeusD

Maybe but these sorts of thread can become quite poisonous and political.

It is in their interests to buy into the subjects story. It is not in mine as i am victim-oriented; I want the facts as far as they can be established. — AmadeusD

I suspect that this is unhelpful language or framing as it leads with the very popular media cliché that the helping professions are soft and subject to bullshit. That may be true on occasion, but no doubt there are similar popular tropes that can be applied to lawyers and they wouldn't be helpful either.

I have no issue putting people in jail if they are a danger to community. I also side with victims.

My background is 33 years in the field working in addictions, homelessness and suicide prevention with vulnerable communities - I currently manage psychosocial programs and support services for a large community organization with a hospital psychiatry partnership.

Up front, I noted misfiring or misplaced emotions. The subject may believe their plight is actual, when it is not, and react accordingly. — AmadeusD

My suspicion is is you dig far enough such a reaction is likely to be a consequence of a personality disorder which will itself be the product of significant shortcomings/adverse experiences in a person's upbringing. Being easily slighted is a classic symptom.

My comment was regarding motivations for dishonesty. I don't think i mentioned violence? — AmadeusD

Ok.

I certainly can - some people are just misguided in their emotional reactivity; this is the sense of 'misguided' or 'misfiring' emotions — AmadeusD

Maybe - although I'm not sure what emotional reactivity is - if you are referring to difficulties with emotional regulation, that is generally the result of trauma or brain injury.

Thinking you've had a disadvantage and behaving just so doesn't mean that actually happened. — AmadeusD

Interesting. If your interpretation of my words are that some people justify their behavior (or lack of virtue) on the basis of fictional backgrounds - I probably don't accept this. Not much further we can go with this since we probably hold different presuppositions.

But we were talking about dishonesty rather than emotional regulation and violence.

I'd think honesty is also a natural final product of some mindsets, from the inside — YiRu Li

I did not say there was no contribution from the individual only that people are a product of their environment. I have worked with a lot of prisoners and career criminals over the years. In getting to know them, I can't think of one example where the person wasn't a product of disadvantage, abuse or trauma.

Can you reframe what you said in more direct language?

Ok. So your question is what makes some people behave honestly? We could also ask what you mean by ‘honest’ but maybe we’ve got enough. My tentative answer is that people are shaped by their experiences. The use and value of honesty in someone’s life will be largely based upon socialisation, enculturation and external factors. I also think that what looks like dishonesty may not be intentionally deceptive - it may simply reflect a person’s different perspective.

No - my question is what is a mindset? How are you using this word? Is it personality or worldview or a habitual disposition?

Can honesty be considered a culmination of a particular mindset? — YiRu Li

I still don't know what you mean by mindset. Do you mean worldview or value system?

The Devil is, alas, no more. The last one died in the Hobart zoo in the 1930s. There are attempts underway to resurrect it from DNA. — RobTAS

No, that's the Tassie Tiger. The Tassie Devil is fine, although facial tumor disease has been a threat.

What characterizes the mindset associated with honesty? — YiRu Li

Not sure I understand this part - what's a mindset? Do you mean a personality?

Can one still be deemed an honest person if they occasionally engage in deception? — YiRu Li

Who knows? The question is a bit vague.

Criminals can be very honest with each other and follow a code, even if they ultimately profit through dishonesty and terror. How a person presents to us will often depend upon the context. A father may be honest to his family and dishonest to his boss. Combinations are endless.

I generally think people are a mix of honest and dishonest choices and the context is important. Can I trust this plumber to do a job for me? Can I trust my friend? These are situational.

However, the more philosophical question, is my friend virtuous, may be unanswerable and not entirely relevant to my experience of them.

We don't inhabit "preconditions for belief and doubt", we adopt them. When and if they fail, we can correct them. I'm not quite sure what inhabiting reality means, but if I understand what you are getting at, I would say we do inhabit reality — Ludwig V

Sure. I guess I was suggesting that the world we inhabit is one where these precognitions are given. But I get your point. I was looking for a stronger word than adopt because in some cases we don't choose or adopt them, they may more be like presuppositions for a world we think of as true. That kind of thing.

Thanks.

For the later Wittgenstein and the phenomenologists, faith is no longer needed in order to ground certainty in the existence of the world. They have freed themselves of the anxiety that has accompanied all belief and evidence based foundations of the really true. For them it can never be the case that a disconnect exists between what is actual and what we think is actual, a source of fear that illusion and error could cloud our apprehension of what is true. — Joshs

I'm not sure how this is done in a practical sense. Is your following para the explanation?

We always already find ourselves ensconced within one language game or another, one or another form of life providing the frame of intersubjectively shared certainty within which we can agree or disagree on what is true or false. The frame itself is not a belief but an unquestioned prerequisite and precondition for belief or doubt. — Joshs

So we inhabit a series of contingent 'domains' which we can explore through our shared presuppositions or rules? Which means that we do not access Truth/Reality but shared truths/realities - frames which are without foundation, are relational and context dependent. A meta-narrative version of reality is not something even recognisable from this position. We inhabit forever preconditions for belief and doubt, but never reality itself. Can you expand on this or correct my take?

:up:

Melbourne, Australia.

I think what you say is fair. I guess all I am proposing in response is that it's one thing to hold that birth and death are merely stages in eternity, but it is another thing entirely to have a system around this belief, to say that we know how it works and what we should do. (And I am not saying that you do) It's a bit like the idea of a deity. It's one thing to be open to the proposition. It is entirely a different thing to say you know what that deity wants.

It didn't really come across. Do you mean this?

I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but I do fear that it might be true, and it does provoke existential angst. — Wayfarer

I was thrown off when you then said this:

Religions are often depicted in terms of 'carrot and stick' in our secular age, although I think it's a caricature. I understand the goal of Eastern religions, which is mokṣa or liberation, in terms of a transition to a wholly other dimension of being, one which is quite unimagineable from the naturalistic perspective and is therefore conveyed in mythological or symbolic form — Wayfarer

Wasn't sure where this left things.

What impact does such a belief have for you, as someone with an interest in idealism and Buddhism? Surely there are versions of karma that would be understood in similar 'cause and effect' terms?

I would think that, if one were to believe that there was indeed a judgement at the time of death, and that the fate of the soul depended on that, then it would make a difference to how you view your life, wouldn't it — Wayfarer

Indeed. Well I attempted to address that above with -

And even if it does, my next question would be how does it matter in terms of how we live? How do we get from this to reincarnation or consequences for choices? Or some other cosmology and metaphysics which seeks to exploit this murky model? — Tom Storm

Which was my way of saying that it is one thing to think there is an eternal dimension to being and it's an another different thing to wrap a religious system around it. How do we arrive at a judgment model, with or without a deity?

I'm not saying I necessarily believe it, but I do fear that it might be true, and it does provoke existential angst. — Wayfarer

Yes, and that's one answer to the question that often informs these speculations. Fear.

Stop pretending to know about a position you cannot even spell. — Lionino

Do you always resort to second rate abuse when you can't answer a question? :wink:

No pragmatist says "stop researching" to theoretical physicists and asks them to become engineers instead. — Lionino

Indeed, which is why I didn't say 'stop researching'. So well done there. I asked you why the question is important.

I asked what practical difference does it make to our quotidian life? What are the consequences/implications? I'd be interested in hearing your response. I ask the same question of idealism. What are the consequences of such metaphysical models for daily living?

Protocols of Elders of Zion does not talk about semites as far as I know, only about Jews, so it would not be the case — Lionino

Antisemitism is just a word. The usage refers to hatred of, or bigotry against, Jews.

I wonder why you are so obsessed with a word?

Most people understand that antisemitism refers to bigotry against Jewish people.

You really betray your intentions whe you say the Protocols were used in the "Greek parliament" to prove a Jewish conspiracy. To anyone interested in what Tom is lying about, he is referring to Ilias Kasidiaris, who is basically a pariah of Greek society, not representative of any "structure". — Lionino

You seem to betray your intentions by taking my argument into the territory you want it to go instead of dealing with the actual point.

Saying I’m ‘lying’ is an especially slippery touch. Abuse is not an argument. Particularly when my purported duplicity focuses on a point I didn’t make.

My point, in simpler words, is that the Protocols continue to be a key source of structural antisemitism supporting the beliefs of those who endorse such a world view. They still have cultural currency. I did not argue that the Greeks have embedded them. Just that they remain an evergreen and will regularly surface. You will also note I wrote in my initial response:

But you’re right that it isn’t official state policy anywhere but the Middle East. — Tom Storm

Do you deny there is persistent bigotry against Jews?

Non-response as expected — Lionino

Perhaps you confuse information you don’t know or understand with a non-response - I don’t blame you, it’s a complex subject.

I remember debating a Nazi and David Irving acolyte back in the 1980’s. He argued that since semites included a broad group of people, not merely Jews, the issue was incoherent, a non- starter. It’s a pretty old and wonky argument. And of course, I’m not calling you a Nazi.

We know that a hatred of Jews is a very specific and organised bigotry. It comes in many forms. Much of it set out by that Tsarist text, the aforementioned Protocols, which as recently as 2012 were referred to in Greek Parliament as evidence of a structural Jewish conspiracy. And remains the model for most antisemitism and remains a best seller throughout the Middle East. In fact, the starting point for this form on antisemitism is generally pointing to Jewish success stories and prominence and hinting at special treatment and benefits of race. Let’s not quibble over definitions, let’s talk about usage.

It’s more complex than that.

Just do an internet search on where The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are sold or referred to. :wink: — Tom Storm

That is a philosophical response. Pragamatism. Read more and try to think before you get lost in your own baggage.

We’ll most want to wipe out Israel. Just do an internet search on where The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are sold or referred to. :wink:

what reason do I have to believe in the maintenance of the self as opposed to its constant creation and subsequent destruction and replacement by another self?". — Lionino

I guess my response is another question- What reason should we care about that question? What experiences are you having where this is important?

Call me Derek.

Where are semites singled out for the reason that they are semitic, besides maybe in Iran and India? — Lionino

Everywhere I have ever been. Not to mention much of the Middle East. But you’re right that it isn’t official state policy anywhere but the Middle East.

My intuition is the we are a brief flash of light in the infinite darkness. I’m certainly not the same entity I was 20, 30, 50 years ago. I would need a substantive reason to accept some permanent substance/consciousness that persists across the ages, above and beyond personal identity. And even if it does, my next question would be how does it matter in terms of how we live? How do we get from this to reincarnation or consequences for choices? Or some other cosmology and metaphysics which seeks to exploit this murky model?

The bigger question is why did he take to wearing his bicorne to match his shoulders? Was this to assert his yet to be articulated status as a Nietzsche's superman?

Nicely put and presumably you’re talking about a process that will continue indefinitely as new or revised models supplant earlier models.

Nothing matters? That's great. Go live in a pile of sand away from society and the goods and services it produced by people who live and die every day for the opposite belief. Who also, as a matter of fact, maintain for you. — Outlander

This seems an odd argument. I don’t have to believe in anything transcendent or foundational in order to appreciate comfort. Nihilism doesn’t choose chaos and hardship, it merely accepts that there is no intrinsic meaning available to us. There’s a significant difference between 'there is no inherent meaning' and ‘nothing matters’.

How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society? — Athena

I tend to agree that Nietzsche's often blustering, histrionic style is tedious and nothing I’ve read of his work is of use to me personally. Feel free to ignore him.

I think that if youre not talking to physicists or academic philosophers, thats probably a good move for self-preservation and time-saving :P — AmadeusD

:up:

That aside they are correct in the view that some of the most egregious examples of Dunning Kruger syndrome have been speculations on QM. This kind of drivel just makes it harder to locate the more credible speculation, surely?

Sensible assessment. :up:

:rofl:

Sorry, dumb it down further. :wink:

Are you saying?

People may experince pain and suffering. We ought not do anything which deliberately causes pain and suffering to others. Doing so is morally wrong and is thereby an objective moral fact?

Is that an ought from an is?

I agree re Descartes - I have generally held that 'I feel pain therefore I am' is a lot more explicit than thinking and 'aming'.