Or perhaps I'm just gullible to Trump's speeches and interviews where he appears to be more sensible and competent than Baiden. — Hailey

That's interesting, I can't imagine Trump ever appearing more sensible or competent than Biden. I'm not an American, so the matter is largely academic. Trump feels more like a stand up comedian than a politician and I can see how some people might be drawn to the spectacle.

But I was simply relating what I thought might be an answer to the question by ↪schopenhauer1 — jgill

Fair enough.

Hint: He made an attempt to stop illegal immigration along the southern border. He made an attempt to influence NATO members to pay more their share. He met with tyrants to try to reduce tensions. . . .. feel free to ridicule. — jgill

OK. Are you saying that there is a positive and effective side to Trump's Presidency, or just that these items listed are also part of the popular perception - at the less wacky end of things?

I imagine that for some Chinese, Trump is popular because he promises to drag America down. I've met a number of hard core Marxists who hope he'll get in because they think it will lead to a system breakdown and a revolution.

That is to say, party-ism truly "trumps" ideas of fairness. Democracies must be set up with respect for the game above all else. But here's the even more intriguing part of this mess. It's not just that Trump is flouting the rules of the game. It is the willingness of those who support the cult of personality to the point where, they don' even recognize it as flouting the rules. They will say, "he didn't really do anything wrong", or even worse, equivocate and say, "he is doing no worse than X, Y, Z politician". And thus, this political gaslighting is the new narrative. — schopenhauer1

I think this is right.

It's the otherwise well-tempered folks that would vote for him that is the riddle to be solved. — schopenhauer1

This is a more hair-raising idea and I agree, that's some riddle.

The institutions that have tasked themselves with informing the public have failed in that regard. — NOS4A2

I know hating the media is a popular sport amongst people, right or left-wing. No one ever seems satisfied that the media properly represents their interests and the media is always too right, or too left, or too partisan, too phony, or too corporate... Which is why people seem to pick the media outlet (in the old days, the newspaper/magazine) which best reflects their values and intellectual capacity. I'm not in a position to analyze the media landscape and I consume very little journalism. It mostly bores me, for one thing.

Do you remember any of the parallels he drew? — Fooloso4

The discussion comes around halfway through this. Both men also see movies like The Matrix, Dark City, Blade Runner as belonging to a tradition dealing in gnostic themes. Our reality being the fraught product of a demiurge and that there is 'special knowledge' available to those who want to know the truth.

f you look at a lot of the QAnon stuff, there is this theme of "a storm is coming" with Trump returning to destroy the forces of evil in a sort of political apocalypse. It's all couched in very mythic language with Trump being seen as a savior which ties right in with evangelicals' belief that Trump is appointed by God. The other side of the coin is the apathy, disinterest or sheer mental laziness in not fact-checking anything. If it's anti-Trump they reject it, and if it's pro-Trump or against his enemies, they accept it. — GRWelsh

Yes, a fair depiction. I noticed that academic and theologian David Bentley Hart, in a conversation with Peter O'Leary, calls this a modern reworking/revival of Gnostic mythos.

(e.g. Rupert Murdoch media properties have made tens of billions (USD) on shamelessly spewing bullshit in the US & UK, for instance, since the Reagan-Thatcher era that has helped to normalize 'populist cynicism'.) — 180 Proof

Yep. No question. Here too (Murdoch's Sky News).

Seditionist-Traitor-Rapist1 is a stubbornly persistent symptom that, IMO, is struggling to metastasize nationally, maybe even globally. Is that alarmist hyperbole? :mask: — 180 Proof

I hear you.

Mine was more general. It's the sense in which Trump has jaded the entire political scene - the expecation that 'all politicians are liars anyway' (so what does it matter if Trump lies?), who's to say what is true, all the instutitions of government are basically malignant, the whole system is rotten so let's destroy it - those kinds of cynical tropes. — Wayfarer

I got ya. Fair call.

In 1989 I was living in Washington, DC when I'd found Peter Sloterdijk's ominous Critique of Cynical Reason — 180 Proof

That looks exceptionally interesting and vast. I guess I hadn't factored in the idea of cynicism as the era's worldview, a kind of coping mechanism against a world of swirling change and uncertainty. I wonder if this is a different account of cynicism than @wayfarer had in mind? I generally think of cynics as passionless, passive and incredulous of human decency. Tump voters, such as I understand them, seem engaged, passionate and credulous. You understand this stuff well; thoughts?

Apathy in respect of the facts - like, they don't care what he's been shown to have done, they won't watch or read the reports, and if they do, they will re- interpret them to suit their narrative — Wayfarer

I hear you but I suspect they are unable to do differently and are part of a faith-based value system, not unlike the Catholic Church in its prime.

This is what makes the Trump candidacy (should it be realised) so utterly malignant - the fact that he can rely on the apathy and cynicism of his supporters to gain ground by wholly illegitimate means. — Wayfarer

Reasonable questions but is it apathy and cynicism from supporters? Or do you think many of them accept the Trump narrative as true believers in a war against a corrupt 'business as usual' political process? If this phenomenon operates similarly to a cult, then it's a highly complex situation.

As you would imagine, there's a good deal of money to be made out of the UFO speaking/writing circuit. I've watched Ross's various 'documentaries' he is careful, but it's clear he has an audience in mind and seems to have re-launched a flagging career. But some of his research is intriguing.

Nevertheless I am interested in the claims. There are several high profile whistle blowers - the other notable one is Luis Elizondo - Coulthart has used him too.

Presumably, they can kind of materialise or de-materialise. — Wayfarer

I think this is becoming accepted in the 'lore' now. And it goes back to earlier accounts. A famous one I have a slight connection to is Westall, which also seemed to feature 'vanishing and 'reappearing' back in 1966.

I guess it’s for the sake of self introspection which can yield useful knowledge about oneself. — simplyG

Interesting. I hear this often and I think what you say is fair - but I just can't think of a single example of where I have yielded useful knowledge about myself in any such process.

To me it strikes as unhealthy as individuals should have a healthy level of curiosity of what is happening outside their little world. — simplyG

I guess we have to now because of the global effects of untrammelled capitalism and environmental degradation. But it wasn't that long ago what was happening in the next village didn't much matter. I think it is ok to only be aware of your own bubble, as long as this doesn't cause harm to others. The fundamentalist Christian, Fox News watching bubble is not so good.

Roughly 60% of the country thinks this guy is a crook and should stand trial before the election. — Mikie

But what percentage of these will vote?

I am somewhat reassured by what @Wayfarer and @180 Proof are saying. I have no connections to America and don't follow politics, nor do I understand the priorities of voters there or here in Australia. I was surprised that Trump's popular vote actually went up in 2020, despite the previous 4 years, so I'm prepared for anything.

If an advanced intelligence that has figured it all out tried to explain it to us, could we understand the explanation? Or at least get the gist of it? — RogueAI

I doubt it, but how could we know? I did see an interview with (I think) Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins talking about potential alien intelligence with them suggesting that the difference between us and aliens might be comparable to the difference between us and chimpanzees. I guess it all hinges upon whether useful communication would even be possible between an advanced species and us.

There are countries that raise their people to be dumb and deprieve their ability to be skeptical so that their rule can be secured. — Hailey

What countries do you have in mind and can you provide an example?

I don’t buy any of that conspiracy theory stuff. Governments can barely organise the quotidian things they’re supposed to organise, let alone conspiracies to deceive. — Wayfarer

Yep. That's about it.

You put that very well.

I don't think it's the government. We are much more socialized by our families, communities, schools, jobs, TV, the internet. — T Clark

Agree.

Not trusting government to the point of paranoia is a popular culture trope and a bit convenient.

how do we know what to believe in? — Hailey

You can ask that question about anything - religion, media, science, universities, advertising, knowledge in general...

You really need to take things matter by matter and work through them with the information available. Perhaps you can name an issue that you are struggling to get a grip on?

Perhaps reality can only be accepted once one has attained sufficient enlightenments. — Kevin Tan

I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'reality'.

:up:

I undertand.

Whenever I tell someone that I take those, I perceive that they think I take them for pleasure — javi2541997

Sometimes people need medication. We would not take this view with a diabetic who needs regular insulin medication.

They would have to be able to traverse the distances involved in some way other than literally travelling from there to here - something which would appear to us as supernatural, but which would in reality be a form of science unknown and probably inconceivable to humans. — Wayfarer

No question. I think we tend to set odd limits on our speculative thinking when it comes to potential alien technology. I keep hearing people talking about human understandings of time and space as if these would necessarily apply to an advanced civilisation.

But I wonder if one of the ways of facing unhappiness is to accept it — javi2541997

Yes. I think the default setting for most emotional states is to accept it - happy or not. We often assume how we feel is normal. We may not even be certain what it is we are feeling. Nevertheless, off we go, looking for distractions.

I take everyday Bromazepam and CBD — javi2541997

I wasn't referring to prescribed medication under treatment. I was thinking about self-medicating indiscriminately with booze and other substances.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking or trying to communicate. Is it what reasons people might have to pursue philosophical enquiry?

But why philosophy anyway ? If a person is happy who needs it ? It’s often recognised that life is suffering and ignorance is bliss but are these just convenient aphorisms or is the truth somewhere in between? — simplyG

Philosophy might be many things, but, whether a person is happy or unhappy, it often involves examining beliefs and presuppositions to determine whether they are true or justified.

Philosophy is only going to appeal to a percentage of people who have any reason to be interested in the subject. People have all sorts of ways to manage unhappiness; substance use, consumerism, hobbies, travel and other distractions, not philosophy so much. For some, religion may play a role.

From this perspective it appears that reality in this day and age (especially with social media involved) is a type of social bubble which is self created by the choices of the individual — simplyG

I remember people complaining about others living in bubbles well before the internet. There's always been the issue of people inhabiting a class or social group which has its own rules and values and is often ignorant of the wider world. In the days of newspapers, we often knew what bubble people belonged to by what paper/magazine they had delivered.

He lost fair and square last time, and he's going to keep losing (even if he were on the ballot, which I doubt). I think whatever power Trump wields rests on the illusion that he's powerful. If people stop believing it, he'll have no power. It's a real emperor's new clothes scenario. — Wayfarer

I hope you're right, but what I see (and I hope I'm wrong) is that the Trump phenomena isn't about putative power exactly. It's that Trump and Trumpism has precisely the right enemies in an era of burgeoning tribalism, surging right-wing nationalism and the burning nostalgia for 'golden eras'.

Trump's seductive because he is hated by disdainful elites, intellectuals, the bureaucracy, professional politicians, mainstream media, liberal lawyers, progressives, academics, apparatchiks of political correctness, educated professionals, cosmopolitan urbanites, pious Hollywood celebrities and virtue signalling rich folk.

He's become almost a perfect folk hero for these disgruntled and irrational times; an outlaw whose magnitude is endlessly renewed by the onslaught of continuing invective, scorn and legal 'persecution' faced by Trump and his people. Somehow he's managed to combine being underdog and overlord.

And as I've said many times, how can he even be part of a contest, if he doesn't agree to abide by the rules, which he patently ignores and flouts. Wouldn't even be allowed into a tennis tournament with that attitude, let alone an election for public office. — Wayfarer

From where I'm sitting Trump looks more and more the undefeatable superhero, the rebel, the outlaw, the legend. Where we're going, we don't need facts...

I used to have the same approach as yours. Side hustle as a writer some years ago now - I wrote some TV drama and a lot of newspaper journalism and an unpublished novel some years ago. I have friends who are novelists - there doesn't seem to be a right path. Some plan meticulously, some let the characters write the tale. I suspect the key is to just keep writing and reflect on how it can be improved. Read a lot.

I think the really important part here is the way this account shows the other accounts hereabouts to be erroneous. So far I've tried to show that for the pragmatic account, but it should also show how the idea that we can throw out truth and just have belief is flawed; or that it's just a feeling; or reality; or some evolved reaction; and so on, through pretty much the whole gamete of BS hereabouts.

But Frank made another good point, that truth is very basic; so basic that most folk have trouble seeing how basic it is and insist on more complex explanations. — Banno

Nice! Thank you again.

You might forgive me for being somewhat formal, but one way to set out what "...is true" does is found in a very simple construction, the T-sentence. Take an arbitrary sentence, say "The beans are cooking". That sentence will be true precisely in the case that the beans are indeed cooking. We can write:
"The beans are cooking" is true if and only if the beans are cooking.
Notice that on the left hand side, the sentence "The beans are cooking" is being talked about, but on the right hand side it is being used.

Pick another sentence, this time one that is false: "London is the capital of France". We can write
"London is the capital of France" is true if and only if London is the capital of France.
It looks odd, but consider it careful, and you will see that it is true. London is not the capital of France, but if it where, then "London is the capital of France" would be true.

Generalising this, for any sentence you might choose - let's call it "p" - we can write what's called a "T-sentence":
"p" is true if and only if p
...where what we do is write any sentence we like in to the place occupied by p.

A couple of other points. Notice that this works for sentences, and not for other uses of "...is true" like "The bench top is true" or "Jeff is true to his friends". And notice also how little this tells us about truth. Other definitions will say that truth is this or that, and provide profound expositions - philosophers call these the classical or sometimes the substantive theories. What these have in common is that they are wrong. The T-sentence approach, and others related to it, downplay the import of "truth", saying it is a performance or it is redundant or that it needs to be deflated.

One final point. Notice the difference between "what is truth?" and "which sentences are true?" Your OP asked the former. The latter is much harder, and there is good reason to think no general answer can be given.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#TarTheTru
And yes, to those who have been here before, there are complications, but the first step is to move away from substantive approaches to the issue. Lies to children. — Banno

That's helpful and succinctly written. Appreciate it. I read a paper and saw a lecture by Simon Blackburn on the deflationary account of truth and was immediately interested in this approach. Seems to arrest endless theoretical postulations about the 'nature' of truth and gets to the practical business end.

So this approach seems to combine a linguistic account with an empirical account of matters. Is that fair?

How does this apply to claims like, 'it is true that Jesus rose from the dead'? The approach would seem to say this fact is true, if it is true (that JC rose from the dead). But establishing the truth of some claims is fraught. We have no way to verify such a claim. Uses of the word true are all over the place in our culture. Would you say that deflationary truth relies upon an evidentiary approach?

Agree. And the issue with having a 'how to' is that it already presupposes an approach and set of beliefs/answers which in turn implies a bracketing or dismissal of other approaches. There seems to be an arrogance implicit in teaching, in as much as it rests upon, 'I know something valuable others should know and I have a useful way of sharing this knowledge.' I'm not sure there is a way around this.

One of the advantages of method is that it's something written down which allows others to test it. And then the method can be refined by others. — Moliere

What is an example of such a method? Socratic? Phenomenological? Seems that a method is like a recipe by way of presuppositions.

Similarly, I can consider whether an action is moral from my viewpoint, and come up with a moral theory to explain this. However, if I were to consider the same action from everyone's viewpoint, then I would come up with a superior moral theory that just my viewpoint.

In both cases, perhaps the view from many viewpoints is a superior view to that from only one viewpoint. — PhilosophyRunner

I'd actually need to see an example of how such a superior moral theory arises in practice to accept this. To me this looks like you are just obtaining a range of perspectives and what's missing is how this leads to an overarching and still coherent moral position. Perhaps you could demonstrate the model in action with an example, say euthanasia?

I would also think that many acts can be called immoral without the need to consult other perspectives. (Although post-modernists might disagree). Take ethnic cleansing. We can say this is morally wrong. But the people who conduct the ethnic cleansing probably think they are doing 'difficult' work that will ultimately improve the world. Would we incorporate this perspective in any final formulation?

Everybody does and always will engage in philosophy in my view - and one need not have read a word of Plato or Decartes! — BigThoughtDropper

Yes, but as has already been said, the quality of much of it will be shithouse.

The problem for me is this OP hinges on a specific interpretation of one particular account of god and the afterlife. It's a fairly narrow frame in the scheme of human thought and theology and the case has not yet been made that there are gods, afterlives, heavens, free wills or inerrant, (interpretation free) scriptures... So how can we end up exploring what something is like when the thing itself is unknown, hidden/absent and perhaps unknowable?

This is incidental to your project and forgive my atheist lens. Seems to me you are trying to jump to premature conclusions. You are trying to second guess a moral system and rationale for a religion and a version of a god you haven't established as true yet. What you are likely to have at present is a subjective interpretation of one type of organized religion with some general accounts of heaven, free will and the nature of the divine. How does this provide you with foundational justification to make any overarching claims about how any of this functions in reality?

As Tom Waits sings: — Janus

Indeed. He also sings,

Don't you know there ain't no devil there's just god when he's drunk

Of course we don't want to distract this thread with disproportionate atheism.

The argument presented holds for divine absence and non-existence as well. — Fooloso4

Exactly. Atheists are often fond of divine hiddenness.

Let's explore the complexities of divine hiddenness and its implications for human free will and moral growth together. — gevgala

I find lack of compelling reasons to believe in the proposition that god's exist and it seems to me that their absence or 'hiddenness' reinforces this.

Does heaven's lack of divine hiddenness imply the person will not be able to exercise their free will (are they now a robot?) and will not be able to grow morally? Or are they somehow magically transformed upon entrance to heaven so that they don't need to grow morally or exercise their free will? — Art48

Naturally, we can't say anything meaningful about heavens or any afterlife scenarios. Who knows what transmogrifications take place should we ascend to be with god/s? Maybe the soul sheds its flaws and becomes pure... But frankly, what is left of a human being in heaven - are there sexual organs, hair, eyes, clothes, memories....? Why would will be necessary in heaven? Do we hang around up there making decisions? Is there crime in heaven; is there an equivalent to skid row...?

Christian beliefs suggest that sincere repentance and faith in Jesus can lead to salvation and entrance into heaven, regardless of the timing of the conversion. — gevgala

But why should we be concerned about what one of many hundreds of religions or sects has claimed via interpretations of some old books? If you were born in a different country, you would be Muslim or Hindu or Bahai, or Buddhist or Jain or Jew, etc. How did you arrive at your particular account of some alleged Christian beliefs - isn't this jumping the gun?

My thinking reflects my character or temperament and includes the idea that rather than attempting to exclude such idiosyncrasies they should be recognized and admitted as being at the heart of what philosophy is for me. This is not to say that they should be accepted as whatever they are, but rather as material to work with, to alter and develop. The goal is not some abstract ideal of universal objectivity but self-knowledge.

Here I would emphasize the productive aspect of knowledge - to make or produce. We must work with what we have. The question arises as to how best to work with and cultivate my rebellious and anarchic, anti-methodical temperament. — Fooloso4

I'm quite impressed with this and have not heard many people with a philosophical education make these points so clearly.

...remain open to what they might teach us, and to the possibility that there may be questions without answers and problems without solutions. — Fooloso4

Yes. And I've sometimes wondered if there are answers without problems...

Can you say a little more about your idea of a method - what might this look like on the ground (in dot points, perhaps)?