Nonetheless, other users, - more famous or original than me - posted similar threads but they got hundreds of replies. Why did this happen? — javi2541997

I think OP's sometimes grab attention because the timing is right and the wording used seems to grab people's imagination. It's not a science, so who knows? It can be fickle territory. Sometimes it seems as if it is not the OP that generates the interest so much, but the first 2 or 3 responses.

Will it just end up being Pizzagate with aliens?

You are talking about the simplistic definition of racism, as interpersonal prejudice. A definition that 180 has rejected the validity of. The comprehensive definition of racism goes ignores intent and ideology, so there is no need to guess. Within this definition, there is no concept of inaccuracy, we're talking about oppression and social realities, not guessing at the why. My comments to 180 weren't about racism as an ideology, but as a societal reality, keep that in mind. This confusion is the exact reason I made this thread, the term "racism" so easily and consistently causes misunderstandings, quite a mess. — Judaka

Ok - I guess I don't understand this nuance.

It's not "hard"? How do you know whether you got it right or not? If you can't tell when you're right or wrong, how do you know how accurate you are? If you can't tell how accurate you are, how are you in a position to say whether it's easy or hard to do? — Judaka

I think what this highlights is the more general problem of attribution. In life we have to make inferences. In some cases no inference is necessary. I hear the racist ideas and labels in simple conversation. I've watched taxi cabs refuse to pick up Aboriginal people. I've seen restaurants refuse to let Aboriginal people enter (but let white people enter shortly afterwards). None with a booking. I've seen police beat up Aboriginal people, but treat white people with politeness for the same 'misdemeanor' on the same evening (drinking on the street).

But I suspect we need to hear from people with lived experience to appreciate this more fully.

If you see one person being rude to another, with no pattern, and take the racial difference as proof of racism, that's asinine, is it not? — Judaka

I would not say this is ipso facto asinine - it could be that racism is the reason. It might be a hasty inference or a wrong one. It might be a right one. But as I said interpreting (making inferences about) the behaviors of other people is what we do. No one says it is always 100% correct.

For example, if we give a context like police brutality, there are distinct differences in outcomes when documenting by race. This is part of systemic racism and the comprehensive definition of racism. That's because that definition is a literal documentation of disparities in outcomes. — Judaka

I'm not a theorist, but when you live around racism, it's not hard to see it in action if you give it some thought - deliberate and persistent discrimination, intolerance of, and power over non-dominant groups who are often spoken of in negative ways and treated less respectfully, less fully as citizens. You can often see a deliberate structuring of society - use of law, rules and etiquette to set limits upon identity and autonomy of people who do not belong to the dominant race and class structure. But to some extent this is an interpreted process. You have to watch and understand. I think this is what can make racism so insidious.

:up:

Sounds right. Do you accept Kant's account of phenomena/noumena? Or something similar to this?

I think there could be two groups of members: one group where the people don't take part in discussions because they don't have enough data in the discussion itself (5 % or 10 % of the overall) and those who don't answer because you are not friends with (90 % or 95 %)
— javi2541997

I don't think that the decision to respond or not divides in this way. Since the same topics come up over and over again, some members don't want to rehash it. And some topics are simply not of interest or too much work will be involved trying to disentangle things. In some cases it is not a matter of being friends but of having a good idea of where a member stands and how they will respond. — Fooloso4

I agree. There are fascinating discussions I don't participate in because:

1) I feel I can add nothing further to what has been said already.
2) I don't have a particular view on the subject.
3) The subject is too specialized and/or unfamiliar to me.

But then I noticed that almost no one is following those guidelines, and the OPs that do follow them receive much fewer replies. — Leontiskos

I think there's a rather informal, casual approach to the subject here and people probably don't want to get too fancy.

Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains. — 180 Proof

:up: Yep, I totally see this. And white Australians over Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people - not to mention white Australians over any number migrant and refugee groups, Greek, Italian, Middle Eastern, African...

In the 1970's, I remember a Baptist preacher giving us a talk about race and the coming end of Aboriginal Australians. The line I recall was something like - 'It will be for the best at some time in the future when the Aboriginal person will be bred out and be no more.' This was Christian compassion and inclusiveness at its most perverse. Naturally, there was a preamble at the start about how the Good Reverend was not a racist...

I can see merit in that.

I think you know the difference between what is real and what is fake, or illusion, or counterfeit, and so on, so why do you need a definition? — Banno

Good question.

:up:

Is our most vibrant picture of God nonetheless a tragical portrait, elevated in stature but run through with fatal flaws? — ucarr

That's a nice description and one might argue this. A reading of the Old Testament can present us with a god who screws up time and again.

The issue with any version of God is that it will always be in relation to a particular narrative account. Gods are always part of a story which humans tell each other and interpret.

human nature, as I know it, will tear down upon itself any sanctuary of perfection and order before long whereas, faced with a sometimes reveling, sometimes marauding Supremacy, humanity, buoyed upon the desperation of a much-assailed faith, keeps re-visiting the testamental narrative in defiance of rational hope. — ucarr

Perhaps, but then some families are like this too.

Does it follow from God's omnibenevolence that God honors Lucifer's free will no less than he honors yours and mine? — ucarr

That's an intriguing idea. I often suspected God of festering, 'How do I vanquish this horned motherfucker?!" Another way of seeing Satan is as God's loyal opposition - created by God specifically to provide a foundational focus for the freewill he has given humans. In other words, Satan is on God's payroll as inspiration and in charge of punishment.

Also, Lucifer and Satan are possibly not the same being if you look at various exegetical accounts.

The endless variations of this story and the human imagination which propels it are like origin stories from the Marvel universe, only less fisticuffs.

Knowing God exists means knowing God's superlative attributes exist and are therefore to be shared out to the masses via believers. — ucarr

This is not a given. If the God as described in the Bible exists, than this is a violent mob boss deity who runs a celestial protection racket. Claiming god as omnibenevolent is surely just part of a definitional game, which can't be demonstrated as corresponding to a reality. Perhaps we can employ the gospel's, 'Ye shall know them by their fruits.' If god has created a world crammed with chaos and suffering and allows children to die of cancer and starvation in their multitudes, then presumably, he is a piece of shit.

The thread has generated some rich discussions. I love that we can put things out here and be open to revising our thinking and, where necessary, tweak, or change our views. This is what philosophy is about.

BTW, this topic has made me think, "what do people consider overtly Christian? " — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great question. Given the immense variations and range of Christian traditions, I imagine you could argue almost anything in this space. There are Christian fascists, Christian socialists, Christian literalists, Christian radicals... What do they have in common? Not much of substance I would have thought. Can we really say that the message/teaching of Jesus in the various scriptures (assuming this can be clearly articulated) is shared by all or most traditions? And if you break down the tradition to some essential principles, does this reduce the Christian teaching to bland pap a.k.a. motherhood statements?

I understand what you are saying, but what other option is there? Using logic and reason won't work on everyone all of the time, but it must work on some people at least part of the time. Otherwise, no one would ever change their minds. One of the most useful things, in my experience, is to point out a contradiction or inconsistency in how people think. Even if they don't admit it at the time, that will get most people to reflect upon their beliefs and where their reasoning may have gone wrong. — GRWelsh

I used to think this and I don't entirely disagree. However, I suspect the value of sound reasoning plays a small role in people's beliefs and is of little importance to them. It's more about how ideas make them feel and the community they have around them - belonging and contentment. The question you always have to ask is what incentive is there for someone to change their worldview? Reason is pretty low on most people's priorities - but having reasons isn't - meaning, identity, community, belonging, a shared worldview with others - they are good reasons, regardless of the inherent reasoning.

You may be right. I suspect that frequently beliefs and values are emotionally or dispositional driven, which can change with time, opportunity or experience. In any direction. I've seen atheists become Catholics and Scientologists. I've seen Jews and Catholics become Buddhists and atheists. I've even seen a Jewish Buddhist become a Hare Krishna. A friend of mine from a Greek Orthodox background became a Baháʼí , then an atheist and finally a fanatical follower of Landmark and a deist. Beliefs are generally part of people's sense making and community attachment and there may be any number of reasons to revise this in a world as changeable or diverse as ours. Unless you live in Afghanistan... Or you are content and conservative.

And then there is a final subset of atheists and theists who have something interesting to say and who add something to the conversation. That's were I'd think we'd all aim to fall. — Hanover

Amen to that. :up:

It is not a matter of doubting our own existence, but of knowing what we are. the most immediate certainty is that there is thought, sensation, feeling, experience. It does not follow that there is any substantial entity thinking, sensing, feeling, experiencing, — Janus

Nice - that's what I was getting at.

I may be wrong but presumably @Mikie would apply this principle to atheists too for the same reasons.

Just that they shouldn’t be treated as special — IF, and this is very important and maybe I wasn’t clear about, you assume Christianity is indeed one religion among others.

That includes those who argue against the existence of God! I think this is being overlooked. They too are treating Christianity as special. — Mikie

Cool. I agree. Thanks for indulging me.

Don't hate me, but I'm not sure I fully get your position. I read the words and understand the sentences and I also understand that you are not hating on religion per say, but you seem to me making a fairly simple point. Are you saying that if you inherit religious beliefs from your culture and upbringing, you are not entitled to treat these as if they are philosophy arrived at through careful reflection, nor a set of beliefs and values which others should also take seriously?

[ I agree. They do arise from different sources. Many Christians believe in God but not Satan. The Baptist church I attended decades ago argued that Satan was an allegorical figure or personification of misfortune and poor moral decisions.

It's a terrible response because it should be obvious that one can believe that God exists, yet still have the free will to not follow, worship, obey, or trust God (e. g. Satan, Adam & Eve, Jonah, etc.) — GRWelsh

Terrible responses and inadequate reasoning are often part of the fundamentalist worldview, so I don't think you're going to get far with this kind of argument. The other response is likely to be - 'God has his reasons, which as mere humans we can't possibly understand. I have faith God has a plan.' This is the argument I have usually encountered when the faithful are faced with challenges.

What do they say? You can't reason a person out of ideas that weren't arrived at by reason.

I know that's not necessarily the case, but I do think it's why atheists bristle at being called evangelicals, especially when that term is most often used to describe a way of thinking entirely contrary to their way of thinking. — Hanover

Interesting. I'm an atheist and it seems clear to me that there are atheists - usually secular humanists - who are essentially apologists; preaching, evangelizing, proselytizing on behalf of godlessness and the superiority of secularism. Some of this seems an understandable reaction to fundamentalism. Even more understandable when you hear how many secular humanists were former evangelicals themselves.

So would you be more attracted to 'thinking is occurring (as a presupposition), therefore I probably am? — universeness

Good question. I guess I am ok with 'I think therefore I am' as a presupposition. I'm just exploring the notion that if Descartes can imagine a reality wherein an evil demon has created an illusion of a world around us, then why did he assume the thoughts he experienced were his or that they were thoughts? Could an evil demon not also broadcast thoughts into one's mind? Might we in fact be many people in one body, etc...

Many people experience thoughts as someone else's in their heads. This would be enough to doubt the 'I am.'

It's not a huge point with me but it's kind of interesting.

Pretty indicative of occurring, I should think. — Mww

No argument there, but Lichtenberg's point (which I must have made unclearly or I am not following you) was that he might have said instead thinking is occurring and not also the latter part therefore I am. This, as I wrote, has been questioned by some and I kind of get it. But it's not going to convince all.

Yep. Not sure why I am still here, in this increasingly superficial chatfest. I guess the mods haven't noticed me. — Banno

Well, I appreciate your responses here. You keep me on my toes and actually know your philosophy. Your statement that 'philosophy is difficult' seems entirely on the money. You've alerted me to Midgley, Austin, Nussbaum, Searle and others and included papers for us to read. I would have thought that is what this site is about. Expressing differences of opinion with other members is surely a reasonable thing on a philosophy site.

Interesting response, it sounds like you are determined to distort my account.

So, you didn’t say...
No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs

That's right I didn't say it, I paraphrased the point which has been said by others. Let's look at the full quote together and the context.

Nietzsche also argued that there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm

You had added this as a point (about thinking being assumed) yourself after me as if it hadn't been said yet.

I was trying to reference what people have said about the cogito. You were hung up on a word.

Are you happy with the word assumption/presupposition or not? I'm very happy to hear an alternative word. I'd be even happier to hear what you think of the cogito, which seems not to have come up in all this.

But if you want to pass that's cool too.

I'd like to go this whole discussion without defining it.

You literally just said that both the thinker & the idea of thinking are assumed. — ItIsWhatItIs

I literally did not. I said I had described these as assumptions, as a concern some might have. I was in fact referencing Nietzsche. You may notice from the conversation that I have no particular commitments in this space. I am simply interested in the various responses to the cogito.

the next is or was: what do you mean by “assumption,”i.e., what makes something an “assumption” — ItIsWhatItIs

A you and I both know, an assumption is like a presupposition, or something which is taken as a given.

What do you think of the cogito as a foundation of indubitable knowledge?

I am not saying that I swing to a 'hardcore' idealism, but have a general leaning towards the nature of 'symbolic truths'. From my current reading, I see the history of Christian ideas being partly related to historical gender wars, and other political issues, especially in the way Christianity wiped out paganism. Of course, a literal paganism may be problematic as well, as opposed to a more symbolic approach, such as the way most writers on shamanism juxtapose imagination and the symbolic understanding of 'otherworlds'. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me that certain personalities are drawn to 'symbolic truths'. I like the idea of it but it has never worked for me. I can't think of any symbolic truths that have made an impact upon me in life. I seem to be immune for this form of conceptualization. Probably comes from having a working class, Calvinist upbringing (via the Baptist church).

Christianity didn't just wipe out paganisms, it also wiped out Christianity - forms of it that weren't seen as being in the service of the dominant account.

What is your attraction to the symbolic? Is it something about perceived truths which can't be expressed directly?

Here, I have to admit some underlying sympathy with idealism, but balanced against mythical narratives. — Jack Cummins

Why not? I find idealism in it's various forms and, such as I understand it, one of the more interesting aspects of philosophy.

Thanks. Very interesting.

:up:

There are a plethora of arguments given by Christians about Lucifer/Satan/the Devil and God which have no Biblical basis. Do they matter?

What can you say here about Satan and what God wants from us, based on actual Biblical scholarship?

A lot of what you are referring to might well come from popular culture and certain narrow fundamentalist interpretations of Christianity.

David Bentley Hart, a significant theological thinker, reminds us that Christianity has a strong universalist tradition - everyone is saved. (Book - That All Shall Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation, published in 2019) Everyone eventually becomes reconciled with god - god is not a monster who would torture someone forever just for being a freethinker. The infinite love of a creator is at odds with fundamentalist accounts of hellfire, which Hart argues were likely not part of original Christian traditions.

However as Noam Chomsky says - if the God of the Old Testament were real - as written - then he is a devil - a genocidal, misogynist, abusive parent... And this is just god getting things done.

There are numerous examples in the Bible of beings knowing "that" God exists, yet not believing "in" God -- such as Satan and the rebellious angels, Adam and Eve, Cain, Jonah and Judas. — GRWelsh

No, it's not that they 'don't believe in god'. How could they not, they've seen him in action? Satan has a role as a tempter and adversary. Some others ignore god's commands. Judas makes it possible for Jesus to fulfil his sacrifice so there are traditions (Gnostics) that consider him special.

If we have freewill in this space then the only way this can really work, as far as I can tell, is to know god exists and choose not to follow him anyway. If we don't believe he exists, or we have never heard of him, then we are not making a free choice not to follow him. We are unable to follow him because we think he is fictional. What you beleive in is not generally a matter of choice - you either believe in something or you do not

If 'I' does not really exist then does dualism, determinism and no free will, then not follow?
I currently don't find any arguments for any of these 3 proposals, convincing, do you? — universeness

Well, the real question is probably if 'I' isn't there, then what is? And the answer to this is, fucked if I know. :wink: There are philosophical views which would consider you and I to be dissociated alters of the same eternal conscious mind. But as you might say, do we have sound evidential warrant to accept this?

I'm just interested in the various understandings regarding this foundational and hoary chestnut of philosophy - the cogito, that is.

My thinking happens within my brain and your brain functions separately/independently from mine.
What evidence currently exists to refute this? — universeness

This seems to be the case. But we are getting perilously close to a layperson's discussion on neuroscience and consciousness.

Are you convinced by the cogito as a foundation for certain knowledge that can withstand doubt and skepticism?

o. I already made this point. Both are assumed.
— Tom Storm
... & you’ve yet to define what disqualifies a thing from being “assumed” or an “assumption.” When I first asked you, this was your response...
It's not about what I think assumption means.
— Tom Storm
This may be one of the least philosophical things that I think that I’ve ever heard (no disrespect is meant here, truly). Of course what you think a word means within your argument is significant. If it’s meaningless to you, how am I ever to grasp your meaning?

The salient point is that there may not a straight forward 'I am' as the Cogito suggests. The experience of thought insertion leads some folk to doubt that they are a self and that their thinking may not be their own.
— Tom Storm

Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs

If you can't grasp my meaning there might be bigger problem here than you being concerned about what an assumption is.

In fact, it's hard to imagine you don't understand it since you used the same word in the same way as me when you wrote this:

So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? What makes it that the latter isn’t but the former is? — ItIsWhatItIs

What have I missed? You seemed to have grasped my point rather well for someone who doesn't understand how assumption was being used. And it remains curious that you missed me saying this:

there is an assumption being made that there is thinking and that I know what thinking is. — Tom Storm

So we seem to agree on this point and I don't think there's a serious quibble about words being used.

Do you have any thoughts about the actual point being made? I'll concede it's not especially interesting of itself.

Saying & thinking a thing are two different things. In other words, just because something is vocalized doesn’t mean that it’s true. — ItIsWhatItIs

Agree. But where did you get the idea that something is being presented as 'true'. And what's this about saying and thinking? We know that the cogito was an attempt to identify that which cannot be doubted by a person. The point I made was that thought events do not necessarily convince everyone that there is an "I" at the centre.

Even a cursory glance at Wikipedia's pedestrian entry on cogitio ergo sum lists philosophers who make similar arguments -

The objection, as presented by Georg Lichtenberg, is that rather than supposing an entity that is thinking, Descartes should have said: "thinking is occurring."

One critique of the dictum, first suggested by Pierre Gassendi, is that it presupposes that there is an "I" which must be doing the thinking. According to this line of criticism, the most that Descartes was entitled to say was that "thinking is occurring", not that "I am thinking".

What do I think about these arguments? They are interesting but I'm not sure. I'm here to understand the range of views.

Incidentally I've just been listening again to a (long!) online debate between Vervaeke and Kastrup. It's reasonably congenial, although Vervaeke throws up many objections to Kastrup's idealism. — Quixodian

I'll check it out.

— Does Reason Know what it is Missing? Stanley Fish, NY Times — Quixodian

I've often enjoyed Stanley Fish - he's provocative and witty.

Anyway, Vervaeke's main concern is 'awakening from the meaning crisis' - that Western culture is undergoing a crisis of meaning, which manifests in a huge number of ways, rooted in the 'scientistic' view that the Universe is basically devoid of meaning. — Quixodian

Indeed and this has been a preoccupation of 'public intellectuals' for decades, from Aleister Crowley to Alan Watts. Carl Jung ran a similar project.

Australian academic John Carroll wrote a vicious tirade against humanism back in 1993 - Humanism: The Wreck of Western Culture. His message was similar. It started me thinking about those themes.

I suspect there has been some kind of meaning crisis throughout human history. But since the project of modernism has been to foster independent thinking and living as a reaction against the inflexible strictures of religious orthodoxy and the bigotries this has generally entailed, it's no wonder that people today are spoiled for choice and many feel adrift. Certainty has gone and society seems atomized - I find this exciting, but many fear it.

So, in this thread I am interested in exploring and considering this in relation to the understanding of the Christian story. How was Christianity constructed and how may it be deconstructed, especially in relation to the quest of philosophy. — Jack Cummins

I guess you may be asking in essence how do the teachings of Jesus stack up against other ethical systems in philosophy. We don't really know what the historical figure (assuming he existed in some form) Yeshua taught, but we do have old books - translations of copies of translations of copies, written anonymously many years, decades after the events. I'm not sure any definitive conclusion is possible.

How do you see Christianity as part of philosophy (are you talking about cultural Christianity and the influences of Stoicism and neo-Platonist thinking) or are you being less ambitious? There are many types of Christianity today and doctrines and beliefs are a question of interpretation and personal preferences. How are you proposing anyone can get to what it all really means?

I've watched a few of his talks and lectures. Interesting material. I'm curious about transjectivity (transcending categories of subjective and objective through co-creation/relatedness). There seems to be a bit of a wave of this material about - an attempt at rebuilding a discourse on meaning from the wreckage of humanism/scientism/materialism towards transcendental matters. Is Vervaeke a Platonist? I forget. I'm not sufficiently immersed in any of the important literature to get all that much from these on line sages but Vervaeke is an improvement on fellow Canadian Jordan B Peterson, who (and I may be wrong here) often seems to attempt a similar project, a type of restorative transcendentalism.

Thanks.