This question reveals a big gap between yourself and the matter at hand. As if 'trust' or 'value' have anything to do with the use of alcohol.
— Tom Storm

Of course they do. Although probably not to people who are more emotional than they are philosophical. — baker

I don't know what point I was making there; seems like clumsy wording on my part which overstates the case. I was attempting to say that using alcohol in moderation, like most people, is unlikely to split a person into two competing spheres of values and trust. It's certainly not the first lens I would be using when examining alcohol use.

But perhaps the OP thinks all alcohol use leads to Bacchanalian frenzies and distorted thinking.

It does seem clear to me that people's views on alcohol are emotional and depend significantly upon lived experiences. Many of the anti-booze campaigners I've met were those who had ruined their lives through alcohol or had been abused by family members who drank to excess. This would be hard to factor out of one's thinking.

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. — ssu

All political groups have their divisions and schisms. The interesting part is identifying who they are and what they want. I'm often struck by how the Right has a radical free market arm which doesn't seem to care what gets destroyed or sold in the process, and a somewhat separate conservative tradition, which seeks to venerate certain expressions of culture and tradition.

I don't doubt that all divisions are sincere. In other words, they all think they are working to get things done.

I should mention, and I guess for mcdoodle too, that the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin). — schopenhauer1

Yep. Richard Rorty posited a distinction between a cultural left and a reformist left - the latter being a more traditional progressive agenda concerned with working people, the minimum wage, health care, housing costs - economic gains which would improve the situation of diverse communities. The cultural left is concerned with identity politics, culture and sociology. Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps.

What do you make of awareness as the thing which endures? Is awareness like the empty vase in which life arranges the flowers (personality)? Doesn't seem particularly useful understanding - soon we'll be fumbling around in the darkness looking for essences and souls....

Nope.

What alternative impresses you more? — Patterner

On the OP, who knows? This is just one of dozens of unresolvable threads asking what is really real and what an awareness of awareness is.

Not everyone is equally excited by such speculative ventures.

Is our role here to agree or identify an alternative? Or is it to find something more useful to do?

My comment was about the nature of awareness. I am a conscious creature (I think) I find consciousness or the self to be a fairly unremarkable experience, it is flawed and wavering, affected by everything from the weather to sleep patterns, fades with age and as felt by me, seems to be a physical process. As to whether awareness is separate (the way a radio might be separate to the network it broadcasts) who can say? Is this perhaps the result of confusions in language; how would we demonstrated it and how does it matter?

It seems to me that many people seize on the unresolvable question of what is really real because it still seems to offers them the kinds of gaps they need in which to locate their 'supernatural' beliefs. But the question remains, if idealism is true, who cares? It would make no difference to how I live, since the 'illusions' of physicality and realism place inviolable constraints on us all - whether you are Mick Jagger or the Dali Lama.

I think for now these matters are outside of our ability to answer. Having a set of axioms you base your values on is not the same thing as having direct access to reality.

I suggest you would have to deploy reason in support of an argument, and that it's a logical argument, not necessarily requiring empirical validation. — Wayfarer

Yes, I figured that. I think reason like empiricism has its limits. And using reason to justify reason's sovereignty is, naturally, circular.

Does the law of identity, or the law of the excluded middle, begin to exist as a consequence of biological evolution? Or are they principles that are discovered by a being that is sufficiently evolved to grasp them? — Wayfarer

How would we demonstrate either?

Now, of course, it's just the evolutionary adaptation of an advanced hominid, mainly considered for its usefulness — Wayfarer

Not an unreasonable view, although everything sounds bad when reduced to a slogan like that.

In the end this comes under interpretation - your preferences suggest to you that the logical laws are instantiations of the transcendental. I don't see how we can make that claim since knowledge of such principles are predicated on human understanding and cognitive processes.

By rational argument. That some fundamental logical principles must obtain in order for a world to exist in the first place. — Wayfarer

But you never leave the world of human cognition, which holds the scheme of understanding by which this makes sense and can be employed. The logical absolutes are not a view from nowhere.

Logical principles and arithmetical proofs are often included under that heading — Wayfarer

I understand that people may argue this. But since we only have our possible world to go by, how do we know that the logical absolutes, for instance, transcend our world or, for that matter, the human cognitive apparatus? I don't believe we do.

The OP is looking into "preconditions of experience", one of which is Life and another is Sentience (Mind ; Consciousness). Are those topics fantastic, and off-limits, to you? — Gnomon

You often seem to present your ideas in the manner of a Christian or Muslim apologist, with the loaded rhetorical questions.

Answer: no.

Apparently, you free-associate Metaphysics with Religion & Spiritualism. — Gnomon

Really? Why do you say that? And why did you put capitals on these subjects? I already know they are important to you. But it would be true to say that the outcome of certain metaphysical beliefs are the building blocks of certain religious or spiritual views - just as Aristotle is foundational to Thomist beliefs.

Have you seen anyone on this thread talking about gods & ghosts? — Gnomon

Another loaded rhetorical question about a subject I don't recall raising.

Put another way, a metaphysic is a statement of what must be the case, in order for the world to be as it is. — Wayfarer

I don't think you can justify 'must be the case'. You can presuppose it. You can wish it. But can you say it must be true? Mostly metaphysics are tentative theories aiming to explain why the world seems to be how it is. But I don't think we even have a way of establishing precisely how the world is, let alone answering the why part.

. The issue here is principally how one can establish what is the case in the world at the level of philosophy, the most basic level, without an analytic of the structure of the relation between the known and the knower. — Astrophel

I think I can see this. As a non-philosopher, with a tendency towards postmodernism (often with reluctance - it's cultural) I generally hold an anti-foundationalist orientation. I think everything humans believe is constructed by us, a kind of performative interpretation of the world we think we know. Some of these ideas work better for certain purposes than others. Many of our preferences seem to be held for reason of aesthetic satisfaction - it pleases some of us to 'find' meaning, and others not to find meaning.

Can you give me an example of non-speculative, empirically proven, Metaphysics? — Gnomon

You ought to know that nothing is certain. :razz: But lack of certainty is no reason adopt an untrammelled fantasy life. As I've said to you previously, I don't think humans arrive at capital T truth and notions of 'reality' are human constructions. There are experiences and concomitant understandings of the world we can't really avoid unless we want to die young or cause harm to others. I can presuppose I experience a physical world which I share with others. I don't need more than this. Idealism, for instance, makes no difference to how we live.

Sounds to me like you may be fighting a battle against old fashioned materialists and certain forms of science and that 'educating' others is part of your project. Ok then. I've also noticed that many people seem to be attracted to expressions of metaphysics and religion to appease the ghosts of their unhappy childhoods. Good luck to them too.

I don't "need" to concern myself with essences to put food on the table. I just enjoy sampling possibilities, like fine wine, searching for that sine qua non. — Gnomon

Nice place to be. But how is it different to collecting antiques?

If you have "no need", or desire for metaphysics, why are you posting on a philosophy forum? What does it "add to your experience"? — Gnomon

It's because of my conversations with others about metaphysics that I have arrived my position. And note, I didn't say 'no need for metaphysics', I said no need for certain speculative forms thereof. Quite different. I enjoy reading about what others think and why, and, parenthetically, should I learn something new, I might be able to use it. I didn't think there was any particular way to use a forum like this (other than being respectful).

Are you simply looking for arguments against Idealism & Metaphysics? — Gnomon

I look for good arguments against and for any number of positions, from physicalism to idealism.

I'm starting to understand the progression from Kant to pheneomenology to other existential philosophy. It's taken a good while, but then I guess that's what I've been discussing here for the last decade or so. — Wayfarer

That is interesting.

You may like Kierkegaard.

This cup on the table is bound to my mental grasp of it being a cup, and this latter defines the extent the understanding can know the cup. But what about the irrational feels and fleshy tonalities (Michel Henry talks like this) and the bare presence of this thing?

There is, of course, a lot written about this, but the point would go like this: when we turn our attention to this conscious grasp of its object, and we turn explicitly away from its contextual and logical placings, which is to say we shut up about it and thereby allow (Heidegger borrows the term 'gelassenheit' to talk about this yield to the world as opposed to applying familiar categories) the world to speak, so to speak, the presence of the object steps forth. This is an existential move, not a logical inference, away from all that makes the cup the usual familiar cup.
— Astrophel

which I thought a very good but mainly un-noticed post. It goes on: — Wayfarer

It's rich material for speculation, but I am unclear what it tangibly provides me with. I have often felt this way as a boy. Everything around us has a strangeness if you're able to park your lifeworld, sense making approach.

To address that point more directly - I think that, for me, this is where Buddhist faith comes into the picture. It too teaches that the normal state is radically deficient, and analyses the root cause of that state of dissatisfaction ('dukkha') - whereas much of the thrust of secular culture is to accomodate and normalise that unsatisfactory state of being. — Wayfarer

The funny thing is that almost any religion or political philosophy, if followed closely in a coherent (and loving) way by all, would probably deliver us from most of our ills. And yes, this might create new problems too.

The key issues we are also grappling with are incoherence and pluralism. Now I'm all for pluralism... but it also includes a fair few fuck-knuckles who can kick predictability and ontological safety into dangerous places.

Your comment reminded me of the stuff there on Ideology. — Banno

An Australian friend traveling in America got to slightly know a homeless African American man and his young son. They were sleeping rough and begging near the hotel. It was cold and the son needed medical treatment they could not afford. My friend asked them, "Would free health care be a useful policy?" The man shuddered and became angry. 'We are not Communists. This is America."

I think the intuition behind philosophy is something wrong with what we understand as the reality of existence, that there's some kind of deep error in the way we understand the world, which can't be mitigated by glib phrases about flies and bottles. — Wayfarer

That's an interesting frame. I quite like it. I've generally thought that there is something wrong with the plethora of contradictory values humans hold, which seem to cause conflicts and suffering at wholesale levels. Mostly people seem to lack critical thinking skills - I'm not sure it even gets to philosophy for the most part, but of course all positions rest on presuppositions which are philosophically derived. But there is a problem of attribution at work here. It's all too easy to identify a 'paradise lost' scenario, or to claim that enlightenment thinking and the loss of gods has lead to untrammeled capitalism/climate change/Trump/apocalypse.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. Not me necessarily.
— Tom Storm
I've noted your playing at cat-and-mouse on this thread. — Banno

It's probably more the case that I'm ambivalent and therefore inconsistent.

You do philosophy when you pick at folk's thinking, trying to get at what is going on underneath. — Banno

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. Not me necessarily.

I think most reflective people can't help but wonder to what extent they can justify their ideas and what's going on in presupposition land (or underneath in the realm of plumbing) when people say out loud some of the odd things they believe in.

No. I meant that if you have a choice, you'd perhaps best not do philosophy. — Banno

This is an interesting observation and you have suggested as much in other places.

Can you say some more about what you mean by 'if you have a choice'?

I don't think of myself as someone who 'does philosophy' and I find much of it irrelevant or dull, but I am interested in what people think and why.

A human is so much more than that. Being aware is so passive. — Banno

Yeah. Besides, I'm generally not all that impressed with human awareness. It's pretty hit and miss.

What a thoughtful and interesting response. Thanks. But I fear it is lost on me.

It is existential, like an awakening, because one realizes for the first time in this discovery that one actually exists. This is the existential foundation of religion — Astrophel

Not sure I can use this and I have, of course, heard such things expressed for much of my life. I spent my early life with Theosophists, followers of various forms of Buddhism, Hinduism, Gnosticism and mysticism. What is the discovery that one actually exists mean?

the reality of the world rests with familiarity, not with some sublime connectivity between science and reality. — Astrophel

I don't disagree, but how far to take it? I think of science as a tool for acquiring tentative models that are useful in certain contexts. Is the gap between science and reality or the gap between anything and reality worth filling with speculations? For me it isn't. An issue for me is that reality itself is a gap. It's an abstract idea, we fill with our values and anticipations.

It's fine to say that the scientific methodology which leaves the subject out of the picture and just focuses on the phenomena as they present themselves is a mistake if you can explain how incorporating the subject into scientific investigations would make a difference to the results and also how it could even be done. — Janus

I can't see a ready answer to this either, but I'm not philosophically inclined to such views. Possibly @Wayfarer would provide us with an account of how this might be of use. It's probably not so much that adding the personal experience is possible, but recognizing that our scientific views are a form, perhaps, of intersubjective agreement, which ultimately fall short of that elusive thing: reality.

Creating an artificial god would just be a downright lie.
— Dermot Griffin

That's not what Christianity already did? — flannel jesus

Indeed. Would not all gods be the 'artificial' creation of humans? Like polyester. Begs the question, what is a natural god and how would we demonstrate it?

Historically, artists, philosophers & scientists were the ones who were willing to put-in the effort to look beneath the surface, and "see" the universal essence of chairness : — Gnomon

Nicely put. But as someone who is neither an artist, philosopher or scientist, I feel I don't need to concern myself with idealism and such speculative frames. They add nothing to my experience. :wink:

:up: Nice quotes.

I don't understand phenomenology to be metaphysics except in the sense that metaphysical speculation shows us what we are capable of imagining. — Janus

That's probably right. Phenomenology seems to examine how we experience reality as opposed to identifying what reality is. But it seems to me that in the unpacking of our experience, phenomenology may well show us that much of what take to be reality in the first place is a construction of culture, emotion and perception, with brains busily at work, sense making. Or something like that.

Similarly, I think science has no need of metaphysical realism or materialism, and also can safely bracket the question of the role of the subject in constructing phenomena; — Janus

Sure. I think most people would agree. But many might say this approach is a mistake.

So, I remain unconvinced and unconcerned about purported "blind spots" in science; I just find that critique to be inappropriate. — Janus

I guess this is fair but we can dissolve most metaphysical problems by simply pronouncing that we'll bracket them off. Is that fair?

I think it is nowadays pretty useless, and becoming increasingly so in a world so polemically divided which faces so many much more pressing issues. — Janus

I think I'm in agreement with you. I can only speak for myself, but this type of metaphysical construction is of almost no use to me personally and has absolutely no utility in my life. This of course doesn't speak to the truth of it, just how much I care.

Although, as a matter of curiosity I do care; I have long wondered what it actually means to be a Kantian. I marvel at his ongoing influence or the ghosts of Kant.

And Kant's system gave the foundation for Husserl's Phenomenology, which is a very prevalent and influential system today. So, old metaphysics is not totally useless or bad.  For me, it is great study and reading material — Corvus

Sure. I understand this. What use do you make of it in life? Is it just of academic interest, or something more?

I find phenomenology - the littIe I understand of it - intriguing. I simply don't have time or the disposition to make a proper study of it.

Metaphysics is inevitable. But I lack your forbearance. — Banno

You are quite correct "Metaphysics is inevitable." — Corvus

Yes... but I guess it still leaves us with open questions about which metaphysical models we may be willing to engage with, or accept as worth our time.

I heard that someone once said to Kant after he had introduced himself "Oh, I'm an automatic cunt". — Janus

Nice. :wink:

I do think the statistics show there are fewer deaths from war now than historically, but I don't think they support your thesis that there was a war holiday the past couple of decades. — Hanover

Thanks for doing this - saved me the trouble.

Any more positive views of the world's future? — Tim3003

These are challenging times. But times have always been challenging. I remember vividly when a not very bright, former actor was US President and hemorrhaging bellicose cowboy Cold War rhetoric. Many of us thought we were going to be blown up in WW3 back then.

We'd have no concept of a chair but for the fact that, as living organisms of a particular kind in an environment, we found it useful and desirable to sit on something different from the ground or a natural object, and we call what results from that a "chair." — Ciceronianus

I tend to think this is the right frame. Hence we can well ask the question -

Is it "metaphysics" or just the lazy habit of reifying abstractions? — 180 Proof

:up:

This kind of thinking occurs to most people by the time they are teenagers. For some it's a pathway to radical politics. For others it's a retreat into denial and the status quo.

Moreover, you alluded that you used to have a similar view, but have moved past it: could you please elaborate on what convinced you against the view? — Bob Ross

I'm of no use here, Bob, apologies. There wasn't an argument. It was simply the fact that for practical purposes idealism makes no difference to my day-to-day experience. So it just faded as I got on with life. Additionally, I'm not all that concerned if the nature of reality remains forever elusive to humans. Since we conduct ourselves in a realm which appears to be material (whatever it may be in itself), that's all I need to make effective use of the life I have.


What are the advantages of Kant over Kastrup?

How much Kant have you read? Have you moved away from Kastrup? I think many people with an interest in philosophy end up here abouts at some point. I held a similar view (mainly through secondary sources) in the 1980’s.

I guess I also find myself wondering, if accurate. so what? Does it make any difference to how one lives? How is this way of thinking of use?

I think that there is a fundamental difference between the two.
A fearless person is a completely different person from a brave one. — TheMadMan

Words do not have inherent meaning, they have usage. I can see the argument you are making but someone with a different usage preference may not. What does it matter? We can certainly argue that a sociopath is fearless. Perhaps because they have an emotional malfunction at the centre of their personality. But there are those who might call a serial killer brave and bold for their courageous approach to their horrible crimes. I think it is possible to pin a range of interpretations on a given word, the key is to be clear about how you are using it when you do.

Why is a fearless person on a different level from a brave one?
The short answer is ego.
Fear resides in the ego. Every psychological fear rests on the image of myself and every feeling of fear is directly connected with the threat to this image.
A fearless person cannot have a shred of fear from public speech, not because he/she is used to it through exposure but because for him/her there is no sense of threat to the ego/self-image.
So this ego-lessness does not make the person brave because there is nothing to be brave about in the first place. — TheMadMan

I'm not convinced this is right. Ego isn't a model I subscribe too. People experience ontological threats in different ways. You can't really say for certain why someone is afraid of one thing and not another. Not being afraid of public speaking, for instance, may correlate with extroversion and a desire to show off to others, rather than not having a fear of being judged. Some people draw energy from situations others find frightening. I don't have a developed theory here, but I don't think fear resides in some construction called ego (whatever that might be, perhaps personality or self-system are better words) I think fear comes from our capacity for sense making which inform our preferences and awareness.

The difference is, it's easy to see an advantage for all of these activities: it "makes sense" that we get pleasure from sex, or else we wouldn't reproduce, that we exercise be so healthy,... But what about alcohol? — Skalidris

Either missing the point spectacularly or you're not serious. People play dangerous sex games, they undertake high risk activities for the adrenalin rush, the change in consciousness, to experience exhilaration, excitement, elation. 'Healthy' has nothing to do with it. Many things we do, like bungee jumping, are not for our health and serve no practical use, they are for the thrill. To savour an experience. Human beings like to do things to argument their experience. This is not hard to understand.

Who would you trust more to access the value of things, your sober self or your drunk self? — Skalidris

This question reveals a big gap between yourself and the matter at hand. As if 'trust' or 'value' have anything to do with the use of alcohol. As someone who has had a great fondness for alcohol, I know how much better an evening can feel when using it. This is no more about trust or value than going to a museum and having a nice time looking at art. Alcohol can give everything a golden sheen, an additional energy and vivacity which you may treasure long after you are 'sober' - if you were indeed drunk, since total intoxication doesn't have to be the goal.

I find this an odd question.

Humans seem to have always enjoyed altering their consciousness and augmenting their quotidian experiences through all manner of activities - sex, exercise, hiking, travelling, flying, sky diving, deep sea diving, exploring, rock climbing, art, dance, music, cinema, performance, costume, meditation, gambling, massage... these expressions of exhilaration are practically endless. Drugs are just another way of doing this. They can make life a bit more interesting and fun. Sure it's not everyone's cup of tea (or tequila) but not everyone enjoys sex either, so there is that. Nothing is compulsory. And not all things we do for kicks are equally safe. Sex and drugs can easily lead one into trouble.

You seem to hold a presupposition that substances use is a character flaw. This is hard wired into a lot of Protestant cultures. It is also the case that most people who use substances don't suffer issues of addiction. Addiction is a whole separate matter. Again - people can become addicted to sex, shopping, eating, booze and gambling, just to name a few.

is there any inherent purpose in life, including the evolution of human life and history? — Jack Cummins

I wouldn't have thought so. But how does one determine or measure purpose? Against what?