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?

The only McCarthy book I have really liked is Suttree - which I adore. I found BM forced and mannered. But I recognize I am an anomaly...

That shouldn't be so abnormal a concept. Why is it to you? — Outlander

I'm not saying it is abnormal. I just don't think that way. My favorite books are celebrations of language and ideas and are aesthetically pleasing to me. No tome has 'improved' me. Perhaps deep down there are incremental renovations to my psyche that this or that book has contributed to, but nothing sticks out. However I can think of some non-fiction books that have abraded me - Nemesis on Hitler and In the Court of the Red Tsar on Stalin.

Come on, give us a little more than that. Why are you a better or different person, at least, how has your mind or perspective on the world around you progressed or at least changed based on what you've read? — Outlander

Interesting. I can't think of a single book that has changed me like this. The notion of being a better person or progressing in some way seems very quaint to me. Is this how you judge books?

Sounds like a good contender

corporate speak is the death of originality — Rob J Kennedy

I suspect it's more than that. It's a sublimation for transcendental categories via management theory, as if 'true management' is an equivalent to philosophy's ancient quest for 'the good'. Having sat through management theory workshops with corporations, government departments, banks and for purpose organisations, what comes across is an appetite for endless system building worthy of Scholasticism.

Sure I do. But they haven’t seriously shifted any paradigms. Or, they haven’t shifted any serious paradigms. While they may have advanced this or that line of thought, they haven’t altered thought itself. — Mww

Fair enough. I wonder are there any generally agreed upon key indicters for when a paradigm has shifted? @Joshs?

How is my position objectionable? — Gregory

I guess one could say that centuries of philosophy have yet to demonstrate that Platonism and transcendence are true. But I'll concede as faith based positions they have a perennial appeal (no pun intended).

@Banno is not a logical positivist and I recall him criticizing scientism on numerous occasions. Seems to me he is simply arguing for a more careful approach to philosophy, to be more scrupulous with one's assumptions and the use of language.

I heard recently Richard Dawking saying "we dont know how consciousness arises but we are working on it". Isn't the brain enough? — Gregory

It's Richard Dawkins. And I don't recall anyone here bringing him up as a philosopher, despite what the media in their confusions might do for clicks and confected outrage. He may be correct on this. I doubt many on this site are qualified to know.

I think the debate between those who would hold to transcendental entities and those who do not is one that seems vital and worth pursuing. I don't believe that humans have access to any other realm and not being a theoretical physicist or significant intellectual with documented work behind me in neuroscience or philosophy (like most here), I will simply sit back and watch the endless debate between the self-educated and untheorized play out.

Ehhhh….sorry, man, but I have such little interest in the soft sciences. — Mww

That's fine, I am just curious. So you don't see Derrida or Deluze, say, as philosophers. Maybe I should have said post-modernism.

Incidentally - where would you put post-structuralism in all this? Footnotes to Kant?

I have seen this reply:
The problem is that transcendental arguments only work if you grant intelligibility on the front end because a transcendental argument is an argument for the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of experience. But this presents a problem for him [the pressup], if he doesn’t grant intelligibility he can’t reason transcendentally but if he grants intelligibility he grants autonomous reasoning which is an implicit denial of his conception of the Christian worldview. — Lionino

I've heard variations of this too. A question for you. If God grants intelligibility and autonomous reasoning is possible, doesn't this just allow for the Christian notion of free will? I have heard one presup deal with this problem with - '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.'

Transcendental arguments might get someone to arrive at the god hypothesis, but getting to 'Jesus died for our sins' was always going to be an additional leap. There are also Muslim apologists who use presuppositional apologetics to 'prove' Islam.

A related argument used by some preups is the evolutionary argument against naturalism.

The conclusion of the evolutionary argument against naturalism is that if our cognitive faculties are a product of naturalistic evolution, there is no inherent guarantee that our beliefs are true. Natural selection may have shaped our cognitive abilities in a way that prioritizes survival and reproduction over the accurate perception of reality. (note Donald Hoffman makes the same argument to support his version of idealism)

Alvin Plantinga, a leading exponent of the argument, suggests that if naturalism is true, it undermines its own validity. If our cognitive faculties are not reliable in providing true beliefs, then the naturalist's confidence in the truth of naturalism itself becomes suspect, as it relies on those very cognitive faculties. In other words, we need a transcendental source for truth.

Me too. Wish I could get the first 30 years back — Rob J Kennedy

I find it hard to trust those who haven’t wasted their youth. I wish I could have pissed about forever but I was forced into a real job.

“Real youth is that which exerts itself in forging ahead to an adult future, not that which lives confined with accommodating resignation in the limits assigned to it” — Rob J Kennedy

I find her syntax somewhat tortured (perhaps the translation) I tried to read her in the 1980’s but found her largely incomprehensible.

What do you like about her ideas?

I have a friend who works for one of the biggest tech companies in the world. And, they want to know what his essence is. He tells me they have regular meeting about how him and his staff feel about themselves and the company. Are they asking if the essence of the company is alligning to the essence of the employee? He thinks they are. This companies mission statment is, the essence of the company. And employees are expected to not just agree with it, but to own the same essence to correctly align themselves to their priorities. — Rob J Kennedy

Most big companies do a variation of this which often used to be called a 'values alignment'. Corporate culture and management theory regularly spins a kind of quasi religious cult-like ethos. The expectation is that employees will and should be be dedicated to the company's mission, vision and values in an almost transcendental way. I say fuck them. But many employees in my experience fall for it and I guess they might have a big salary as additional motivation.

The puzzle that strikes me is why he thinks his approach might change the mind of an atheist. — Ludwig V

I've met a few people who were converted by this approach, so I suspect it works on some and for a while it was a refreshing change from Aquinas' five ways arguments and the like. Most start with a variation of Kant's transcendental argument for god. If you see a skilful practitioner in full flight, they are fun to watch. But like any skill, some are terrible at it and resort to a kind of bullying. I can see how they might get to a god, but getting to Jesus is much harder.

Alex Malpass is a public figure and philosopher who has dealt with presups several times — Lionino

:up: Yes, Malpass is good on this.

Maybe I do not have the right tools yet. A possibility, that mind has yet to be measured and weighed. But I wonder, could it be because these things are not there – there is no individuated thing being me, in me, or in mind, that one would distinguish from the brain that is seeking something distinct? I was satisfied when I saw my eyeball seeing that there is body. Why do I still not confirm the shape of the soul such as "I' when it is I seeking this soul? — Fire Ologist

These are all fairly standard questions/observations which occur to many at some point in their lives. My question is a respectful, so what? What are you hoping to find and how does this nebulous introspection differ to smoking weed and postulating infinities?

As humans we can generate endless, different types of questions and be struck by the ineffable. Who are we really? What is mind? No doubt there are endless ways in which such enquiries can be posited and answered. Are you looking for an answer that will change how you see yourself and how you live?

The strategy is undoubtedly ingenious, but doesn't offer the sceptics and unbelievers much incentive to engage. Why do you like them? — Ludwig V

Mainly because, as you say, they're ingenious. Quite a stunt to take reason (the skeptic's prized tool against 'superstition') and use the very possibility of rationality as proof for god. But they can also be monotonous and repetitive.

I was surprised to discover when I first ventured into this on-line world, that many people seem to be dead serious about the arguments. — Ludwig V

Me too.

(I can never decide whether God should be a he, a she, a s/he or an it.) — Ludwig V

:up: In light of recent fashion, I think, 'they/them.'

My favourite apologists are the currently burgeoning presuppositionalists, who bypass empiricism completely (via the transcendental argument and Cornelius Van Til).

But we should remember Laplace's famous reply I had no need of that hypothesis. — Ludwig V

This was generally my position. God fails to assist me in any sense making, primarily because theism has scant explanatory power. Tackling the various proofs/arguments are just for sport.

:up: Thanks.

There is a list of more detailed issues, all well known in Christian theology, none of which have what I would call a solution. In alphabetical order, divinity/humanity of Jesus, original sin, redemption through sacrifice or scapegoating, transubstantiation, trinity, — Ludwig V

Indeed. I have never understood why a god would ruin his weekend (the crucifixion) and (as per the old quip) sacrifice himself to himself to save us from himself because of a rule he made himself?

The very idea of invisible god/s who can only be known through old books and human testimony seems incoherant. I think the religious term for this is ineffable. :wink:

The facts it discloses are registered and understood by beings - by human beings.’ But we don’t notice that, because of the ostensibly objective and observer-independent nature of scientific observation. We think that these facts are entirely observer-independent, which in one sense is true, but in a deeper, philosophical sense is not. — Wayfarer

I get the point and it interests me. Reality is constructed for us via an intersubjective human experience. This seems to me to be a similar point Nietzsche makes when he argues that truth is always interpreted through the lens of individual perspectives. He takes it further and says that there is no objective or universal truth that stands independently of human interpretation. While you would accept the possibility of something approaching a Platonic realm. Nietzsche also subdivides perspective into both cultural and individual blindspots. His somewhat brutal visual approach to this struck me as apropos.

It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.

- Nietzsche: Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits

it amuses and surprises me when people think an obedient servant to corporate power, a conservative like Biden is significantly of the left. Just goes to show how muddled political thinking can be.

So, I am asking to what extent does the existence of 'God', or lack of existence have upon philosophical thinking. — Jack Cummins

The problem is how this might play out cannot be separated from how such beliefs may be held. It depends entirely upon what kind of theist or what kind of atheist one is. Many people in either camp are completely ill-equipped for any kind of critical refection, let alone a philosophical discussion. The critical issue associated with any position is how it is applied.

Problem is people focus on Dawkins etc, which distracts us. Remember atheism may just be a lack of belief in gods, but embrace any manner of 'supernatural' positions such as idealism, reincarnation and astrology. I've known many such atheists. And there are theists whose notion of god is so removed from anything personal and knowable that they are virtually atheists and are skeptical of any supernatural ideas.

Understand. Thanks.

Indeed. That is a salient question. I often ask something similar when I hear the old 'both parties/leaders are equally shit' trope. Things are rarely equally bad. I practice harm minimisation in politics. Clearly some options are far worse than others, even if the less worse is still fundamentally flawed.

Kant's is an epistemological, not an ontological, idealism. — Janus

Looks like it to me. I assume you mean that Kant's project is concerned with the nature and source of knowledge, and emphasizes the role of the mind (structures of human cognition) in shaping our understanding of the world. Kant is not (as far as I can tell) arguing that reality is dependent upon mind as Berkeley would hold it - 'immaterialism'. I have not read Kant on Berkeley but I am assuming this would be instructive.

I hear the Existentialists are mighty fond of him, too. — Joshs

What are your thoughts on the existentialist reading of Nietzsche? Is this illustrative of his fecundity, or is it a partial misreading in your assessment?

I have deleted my earlier, less than generous response.

You are doing your best and there's no real merit in my debating your presuppositions here. Go well.

I will leave you with this. The Ubermensch, as I understand it, transcends all foundational thinking and values. FN, though a shy, respectful and sensitive person in life, was like a one man demolition crew in print.

I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.

― Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

:up:

But I do know that the concept of God is incoherent — Ludwig V

Have you got a breif sketch of why you might argue this? I take a similar position, but I am curious how others see this.

If anything, violent video games might provide an outlet, an occupation of otherwise idle time. Take away violent video games and idle hands my find worse things to do in our shit world. — Nils Loc

Indeed. Which is why some also say sport is a sublimation for aggression.

Hence George Orwell's famous observation:

Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.

I am aware that evolution works by killing off the majority of life that is not most highly adapted. — Brendan Golledge

No, that's not my argument. I said nothing about evolution. I said that god/s built a creation largely dependent upon cruelty and predation.

It is mostly Christians who are concerned with "Do I envy?" "Am I lusting after my neighbor's wife?" for their own sake, rather than as a part of an external moral system. — Brendan Golledge

No. Islam does this. Sikhs too. Bahai. Parsi, Jews. How many other religions do you know well?

From arguments such as these (many of which I worked out as an atheist), I realized that Christianity already said many of the things that I came up with by myself. — Brendan Golledge

I suspect that you come from a Christian culture, so it would be a challenge for you to differentiate your ideas from notions already formed by encultured Christianity. This is something which effects all of us born into a culture shaped by centuries of a specific worldview.

I think you have to choose one of these 3 options:
1. There is an ultimate beginning
2. Existence is infinitely old with no beginning
3. The causality of existence is circular (like maybe somebody will go back in a time machine to create the big bang) — Brendan Golledge

Actually there's a 4th option which I go with. We don't know. There's no imperative to choose a placeholder explanation we can't demonstrate.

They are speculation that I find interesting and meaningful, but they are in the end, speculation. — Brendan Golledge

Sure. Speculate away. :wink:

Granted that some lack the ability, but again, that's no reason to reject the reality of the conditions under which the sky is seen as blue. — jkop

I’m not a philosopher, so I make no claims about what is real. It’s common sense to believe what we observe is real but anything common sense is worth questioning. I tend to hold that it doesn’t matter either way, since almost all of us behave as realists the moment we engage with what we know as the external world. Even the idealists.

Yet being insignificant in physics is not a failure in being real in biology where colours are significant. Hence colour realism. — jkop

But I don't think this helps us much. Colour isn't real in biology either. The colours we 'know' are created by our biology. Other animals see different colours, less or more than humans. Or none. If this realism, it is not external to human experince.