It would be difficult for me to assess in your place what exactly is minimizing suffering: letting someone commit suicide or letting someone live :grin: — Astorre

The default position is that it is better to live. But there are situations where death might be preferable; terminal illness being an obvious example. Generally, people are quite relieved not to have completed their self-harm. They often recognize that their desperation was situational and could be overcome. People who are extremely serious about suicide don't generally tell others and just go do it.

Thought experiment: You walk into a room where a stranger is about to commit suicide. What do you do? — Astorre

It happens a lot. Or did. I work in psychosocial services which assists people who are experiencing mental ill health and addiction (amongst other things). I have provided suicide interventions many times.

Why do I work in this area? I tend to value approaches which minimise suffering and promote flourishing. Part of me is a simple-minded utilitarian.

Have you ever felt the urge to take stock of your own paradigm? — Astorre

I don’t have a deliberate paradigm; I have more of a disposition. I’m unsure what I think about many issues and tend to just intuit my way through them. I’m open to many alternative approaches. I'm quite happy with 'I don't know' as an answer. I'd like to know more about phenomenology - but I lack time and find it hard to get a useful reading from complicated texts.

Does philosophical thinking change your approach to relationships, friendships, and love? If so, how? — Astorre

I’ve never paid much attention to philosophy, but I do find it interesting. I navigate most of life by intuition, rarely reflecting or theorizing and this works pretty well. I’m at ease with being, to a significant degree, an expression of the values of my time.

​Ethics in Action: How do you personally resolve ethical contradictions that arise in your everyday life? — Astorre

I lean toward relativism. I see morality as contingent, a code of conduct shaped by history and culture that pragmatically helps organize people and power relations. I can't think of a time I faced an ethical contradiction. I mostly just act. No doubt I sometimes make mistakes and poor choices, but I'm not losing sleep over it.

​Coping with Life's Challenges: Does your knowledge of philosophy help you deal with life's difficulties, losses, or existential anxiety? — Astorre

I take things as they come and expect nothing. I've generally found negotiating life and other people to be fairly pleasant and straight forward. But I recognize that I have been lucky. If existential anxiety is understood as a fear of death or a festering over meaning in the face of life’s absurdity, I am largely untouched by this. I am at peace with the possibility of dying tomorrow, should it occur.

​Balancing Depth and Superficiality: How do you find a balance between your philosophical mindset and the superficiality you encounter in others? — Astorre

It’s often me who’s the superficial one. I do tend to avoid theorists and people who insist on turning every conversation into a showcase of their reading. They are often dull and tend to narcissism. That said I find most people interesting and enjoy almost any kind of free flowing conversation. I don't divide the world of other people into the superficial and the profound, I'm more concerned with people who treat others respectfully.

There's an issue I don't think has been raised yet: "system" often carries a connotation of rigidity, though we can certainly point to systems that are flexible and adaptive. My point is, it's always a question with systems.

In your semantic terms, I was thinking about the use of the phrase "the System" (capital S) in the 60s and 70s counterculture. The imputation was of a particular kind of rigidity, a rigidity that extended to this semantic level. Thus the System was thought to see everything in terms of wealth and power and status, and to be blind to, say, art and feeling, on the one hand, or injustice and suffering, on the other. There were categories of no use to the System, and so it did not recognize them at all. You get the idea. — Srap Tasmaner

Indeed, in some ways a system might also be seen as a heuristic, a simplifying device that helps us navigate complexity, but it can just as readily function as a framework, or even as a symbolic stand-in for realities that remain intricate and puzzling.

Many systems seem designed to make complex things easier to organize and understand, to bring coherence to chaos, but in doing so they may leave out important elements or even distort the picture. As a general rule I avoid people who believe they have created system for understanding reality - it's usually the hallmark of a crank and monomaniac.

Do you agree? — Banno

Well, here's the thing. Aren't there folk who are wise in some areas and dunces in others? Or does 'proper' wisdom need to be all encompassing?

I spent yesterday at a Voluntary Assisted Dying conference, and came away with an overwhelming belief that VAD is a moral good; one that was have been impossible to implement until recently. — Banno

Agree. I recently had an acquaintance put this into practice. It was a good thing.

There may be some benefit in further considering why wisdom fails intensification. Dose this show that it is valuable for its own sake? — Banno

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fails intensification'.

Sure. The Enlightement casts a shadow. I'm overall in agreement with Vervaeke's diagnosis, although bearing in mind it is presented via a series of 52 hour-long lectures, staring with the neolithic, so it's very hard to summarise. — Wayfarer

His initial interview with Alex O'Connor seems to be a good way to cut through to his primary focus.

I personally struggle to accept that today’s people are intrinsically unhappier and/or more foolish than previous generations or eras, despite the popularity of this trope with everyone from New Age folk to MAGA supporters.

What about spiritual wisdom? A separate category?

They’ve seen everything before. I was thinking for a minute that maybe wisdom and maturity are the same thing, but that’s not right. I guess it’s more that maturity is a prerequisite for wisdom. Wisdom stands back and sees everything at once, how everything fits together, what’s going to come next. — T Clark

I think that's a nice formulation. I work with a lot of people just out of university, in their mid-20s. Every so often I meet someone who is simply wise, who shows a capacity for moral discernment and prudent decision making more typical of someone mature with a lot of experience. My suspicion is that some wisdom is innate, or at least can be cultivated early.

— Tom Storm
No.
— L'éléphant

That’s ridiculous. I think it shows, perhaps, a lack of wisdom. — T Clark

My initial reaction was similar, but I think he needs to explain this further. He is construing a wider understanding of education, which would include people without degrees and fancy paperwork.

I asked Claude to have a go at this for me, and it produced the following groups:

Judgment/decision/conclusion/opinion (evaluative processes)
Experience/knowledge/facts/information/understanding (epistemic foundation)
Ability/skill (capacity)
Good/sound/valid/reason/sense (normative approval)
Quality/standard (measurement/evaluation)

It then suggested on this basis that wisdom sits at the intersection of out epistemic and normative judgements. This last corresponds to my own intuition. To be wise is to achieve a good outcome. — Banno

Yes, this corresponds to my intuition on the subject. My initial thinking about wisdom led me to words like skill, common sense, judgment, measured.

Is wisdom, when demonstrated, appreciated by others? Does it cut through? Is it truly valued? I imagine the answer is: it depends…

Is there a known individual or individuals today whom we might call wise? Or is wisdom entirely in the eye of the beholder and shaped by their values?

But in general, wisdom and cleverness are a natural dichotomy that organises the brain. And so also organise society as our collective brain. We have something of major metaphysical importance that goes beyond personal neurology and speaks to our societies as the combinations of its institutions and its innovations. — apokrisis

Interesting observations, thanks.

How do the two sides of this equation play into each other, and is something new indeed occurring as a next phase of its evolution? — apokrisis

That seems like a pertinent question.

Can an uneducated person be wise?
— Tom Storm
No. That said, there are many ways to educate ourselves. I don't mean academically. Reading, listening to other reputable people, and watching the actions of those you respect. — L'éléphant

You’re seeing education as something quite different from traditional book-smart or university-style learning. I imagine it is possible to be wise in some areas and foolish in others.

Wisdom has a moral implication, — Banno

Nice point. Hadn't thought about that but you're onto something,

You can be too clever by half but never too wise. You can be very smart, but can you be very wise? You can be quite wise. The fragility of intensifies indicates that wisdom is an absolute quantity.

We have folk wisdom, Divine Wisdom (complete with capitals), ancient wisdom, and conventional wisdom. Wisdom can be possessed, accumulated and passed down. And even occasionally applied.

Better to be wise than knowledgeable or intelligent, and we have artificial intelligence, not artificial wisdom. Wisdom is earned by suffering and experience, not so knowledge or intelligence. We say someone is intelligent when they demonstrate analytic capacity but wise when they show good judgement.

Is it more serious if I question your wisdom than if I question your judgement? — Banno

A lot to ponder here. I like it. The notion of judgement is clearly important.

Oddly, "wise" and "video" are cognates. Having seen YouTube, I find that ironic. — Banno

Quote of the day right there.

Are you a 'meaning seeking' type of person such as you have described? Where do you sit on this?

On this point, I also ask you to consider the role that religion has played in each of these different aspects of human life. My initial point with the post was to ask readers to consider the basis for most of the contention and separation that we see globally as being religious ideology. I — Paula Tozer

Yeah well this is a subject so familiar and well covered by atheists that it's close to being a banal observation. I've made the point innumerable times in my atheist proselytising days and on this site we sometimes get members who are active for a while, who hate religion and have little else to offer the God debate than Dawkins or Hitchens style polemics. Not saying you're one of those, just that this style of argument appears here often enough.

Personally I think humans fuck everything up, whether it’s secular or religious. Our drive for control and conformity perhaps. Amongst my friends I count a number of Christians, a priest and a sister too, who are extraordinarily tough on religion and believers and no fans of the oppressive history of the church. There are Christians and Sikhs whose company I prefer over many doctrinaire atheists I've known.

Everyone I know has been altered by religious ideology - that includes Catholic, Baptist, as well as other Protestant religions. — Paula Tozer

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by ‘altered' could you give an example? But isn’t it fair to say that most beliefs alter us in some way? Politics, culture, and art all leave their mark on us. Some radically so.

Any views on Buddhist, Sikh, Hindu, Parsi, or Jain faiths?

To compare it to a deviance..I don't know if I'd go that far. — Paula Tozer

I don't see homosexuality as a deviance. If you do then you're missing my point.

In my view, it's absolutely unnecessary to follow a deity. — Paula Tozer

My point is not connected to whether it is necessary to follow a deity. My point is that some people are drawn to this form of meaning making and some are not. I see much of this as an innate disposition, an orientation or preference. Are contingent factors like culture, linguistic practices, and upbringing involved? Of course.

:up: :up:

I disagree here. I would call it need rather than preference. Some people seem to need religion or god or mystery or whatever and some people do not, some people are comfortable with no greater meaning and some are not. Preference implies an array of different paths on a journey but actually its a matter of being on a journey or not in a journey at all. — DingoJones

I don’t disagree with this. All I mean is that some people are 'turned on' by theism and some are not, just as some are attracted to boys and not girls. I meant preference in that sense, that it is essentially an orientation rather than a reasoned choice. But I think “need” works fine too in a broader sense. And I would include the need 'not to believe' in God along with the 'need to believe'. Both atheism and theism could be understood as sources of affective satisfaction.

I think even when a meaning seeker rejects religion they will find another path to it by another name. The ones who aren’t searching for meaning (or at least meaning beyond the physical world), aren’t selecting any preferences because they aren’t looking for anything (beyond the physical world) — DingoJones

It has sometimes interested me how many atheists actually believe in supernatural claims. It’s only God they don’t accept. Some atheists I’ve known believe in astrology, ghosts, clairvoyance, and other occult phenomena. So I’m not sure what the connection between God, religion, and the occult actually is for some folk. It’s more the Dawkins-style atheists who are galvanised by empiricism who seem to find any supernatural thesis anathema.

but it sounds like you believe no one has any knowledge about god, from the bible or otherwise. Is that correct, and if so why do you suppose that is? — DingoJones

Even many theists, especially the apophatics, argue that nothing sensible can really be said about God. It’s all mystery. I just take their move one step further: if that’s the case, why not forget about it and piss the God idea off altogether?

In the end, I think theism (as I’ve often said) is a matter of preference, much like sexual orientation: you can’t help what you’re attracted to. It’s shaped by culture, upbringing, aesthetics, and a person’s preferences for how they construe meaning.

Thanks. Not sure I can make much sense of the quotes but I appreciate the context above. Cheers.

Unless the god in question could/would/should stop or curb that evil. — DingoJones

Sure, but for me the problem no one can demonstrate what God believes or what God’s properties are, so any claims about god's relationship to evil or to good are moot and at best, tradition. So for someone to say God is good or that God responds to prayer is on them. But these models of God have no bearing on whether there is a God or not, only on what people claim about God. What difference does it make what the claims are, or what an old book might say about God? God may well be a cunt. Is there any way we can demonstrate either way for certain?

For the record I’m not a schizophrenic and the scenario I’ve just described has only happened once but that’s all it took to convince me. — kindred

I work in the area of mental health. Plenty of people have one off experinces of voices, noises and other odd symptoms and do not have a diagnosis. So there's that.

Obviously the shocking thing was to hear something in my head in the first place almost like a loud voice and not the usual internal monologue, to have this exact phrase repeated by a family member truly shocked me which is why I believe that there’s a higher power, for what else could explain it — kindred

Lots of people hear voices, their names being called, or other meaningful things via voices in their heads. Not everyone turns to God to make sense of it. If you do, that’s fine—but for me, this isn’t a reason I would see as justification for a God.

I believe that there’s a higher power, for what else could explain it. — kindred

No offence intended, but that's a classic 'argument from ignorance fallacy' - "I don't know how else to explain X, therefore God."

It is to avoid repeating the usual cliches about Nietzschean power, strength and egoism recycled from Marxist and Christian thought, so that another Nietzsche can be made to appear. This would not simply be a ‘kinder, gentler’ Nietzsche, as though we could use the same cliches and position him on the ‘right’ side of them. I dont know ether he is kind and gentle. Whether he is or not, I want to show to what extent this other Nietzsche has been obscured by the preconceptions imported from traditional philosophical thinking about the self, the community, power and ethics. — Joshs

For a non-philosopher, this is interesting to read. I find Nietzsche difficult to understand, not because the words are hard, but because the meanings have multiple possibilities. I don’t have the time or inclination to unpack and study this material. That said, I’m somewhat tired of young men using Nietzsche as a justification for bumptious narcissism.

But Nietzsche's "individual" is not the liberal subject. It is a transindividual site of forces. The "Will to Power" is not what an individual *has*; the individual is what the will to power becomes in a specific configuration. The Overman is not a super-powered individual. The Overman names a process, a going-across, a transformation of the human into something else. It is about the creation of new possibilities, new ways of being, new values. It is not about the triumph of one individual over others but about the emergence of a new form of life that transcends the current human economy of ressentiment and bad conscience. His purpose is not to glorify any specific crime or social order but to provide the tools for a ruthless critique of all values, especially the moral ones we hold most dear. He doesn't offer a new system to believe in but a method for questioning, — Joshs

This is a particularly illuminating and helpful perspective.

I used to be an atheist up to my early twenties but as a grew older I had some personal experiences which swayed me rather than scripture which I never found convincing to begin with. — kindred

Fair enough. The issue with personal revelation and experience is that, for others, it’s just hearsay. (Is that Hume?) Whoever it is, it sounds fair. I’ve heard many first-hand accounts of experiences: Indian girls who say they encountered Krishna, Muslim cab drivers who report seeing Muhammad and the angel Gabriel, Christians who say they saw Mary or ‘felt’ the Holy Spirit. I’d be more convinced if the Hindu girl encountered Jesus and the Muslim cab driver saw Krishna. It seems to me these experiences are primed by culture and expectation.

I’m inclined to think that people’s behavior has little bearing on the truth of their beliefs. We can do good things for bad reasons, and we can follow the moral code of fictional characters from novels, yet still perform righteous acts.

The fact that so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity has no bearing on whether there's a god or not.

Are the philosophical arguments much better? Are any of those cartoonish in your view? — DingoJones

I’ve never heard any that are convincing to me personally, but there’s nothing cartoonish about Leibniz’s argument from contingency or Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism.

Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? — DingoJones

I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good.

What if there is a god and he’s a thug? Like the one described in the Old Testament. We can perhaps disprove that god is good as humans understand him, but perhaps he’s more Trump than Lincoln…

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more?

Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion. — DingoJones

I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments.

:up:

I tend to view Biblical literalism as a cartoonish account of God. I started a thread on this. If atheists confine themselves to attacking literalists, they’re just going after low-hanging fruit. So it’s a general point, and it’s also clear that the behavior of Christians, or Muslims, for that matter, has no bearing on whether a God exists. Plenty of theists, like Spong, think religions are often primitive and terrible.

I wonder if Nietzsche is the most misread of popular philosophers.

That's very interesting and certainly resonated with some of my thinking.

Have you ever reflected on Nietzsche’s initial identification of Wagner as a kind of “great hope,” followed later by his disillusionment and condemnation? You can almost see the need for an Übermensch as a kind of antidote for the sorts of transformative cultural heroes who promise renewal but will eventually will let you down.

The person who might find this interesting is a Christian who is troubled with some of the consequences of Christianity, so he's doing like most religious people do who are otherwise devout believers: they modify the doctrine in a personally palatable way and often convince themselves that they have uncovered the truer form of the religion lost somewhere in time. — Hanover

I think this is right.

I think the glorification of crime is a very real phenomenon, particularly among young men. In my experience, the posters hanging on the walls of college dorms will generally be of either famous musicians (the poet archetype) or various Hollywood villains (e.g., Tony Montana of Scarface seems to have enduring popularity, Tyler Durden of Fight Club and Heath Ledger or Joaquin Phoenix's Joker as well). A Batman poster is the sort of thing you have your parents buy for you as a kid. As a teenager or young adult, you get a poster of the Joker. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Sure. Although those film references are more Gen X than current.

But I’ve always suspected that the antihero would eventually morph into a fully antisocial hero at some point.

I can’t comment on Nietzsche, but is the anti-hero, and the glorification of crime and anti-social pretentions part of the West’s apparent self-loathing and deconstruction, where (for many) only forms of subversion are deemed worthy of veneration?

Tom, if believing in a mystical version of a god helps you to sleep better, why would I challenge you? However, I would invite you to consider that you've kept only one piece of the puzzle as your soother. I've been there and done that.
Why not simply enjoy what quantum physics is revealing - that all is energy, connected, and coherent? — Paula Tozer

I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer.

The Baptists don’t have a central hierarchy and allow a range of views. The governance is congregational. There are also Literalists here. But fearful literalists have never been big in Australia.

Please provide examples of your claim - of a Christian religion that does not, at its core, rely on original sin and the sinfulness of "mankind." — Paula Tozer

I grew up in the Baptist tradition which did not accept this doctrine and took issue with it. It also rejected the notion of hell. You'll find this in Protestant and Anglican/Episcopal traditions. And in some Eastern Orthodox and some Methodist.

If you are a modern Christian who understands the Bible as allegories and you believe in evolution, then the story of Adam and Eve is a creation myth and original sin is impossible. Not all Christians are primitive literalists.

To borrow a quote from one of the prominent Episcopal Bishops in America, Bishop Shelby Spong (who died a few years ago) -

Atonement theology assumes that we were created in some kind of original perfection. We now know that life has emerged from a single cell that evolved into self-conscious complexity over billions of years. There was no original perfection. If there was no original perfection, then there could never have been a fall from perfection. If there was no fall, then there is no such thing as “original sin” and thus no need for the waters of baptism to wash our sins away. If there was no fall into sin, then there is also no need to be rescued. How can one be rescued from a fall that never happened? How can one be restored to a status of perfection that he or she never possessed? So most of our Christology today is bankrupt. Many popular titles that we have applied to Jesus, such as “savior,” “redeemer,” and “rescuer,” no longer make sense...
Bishop John Shelby Spong Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy

Is it just a corollary of the runaway principle of capitalism?

Can we compare the superficial West to other societies which do not see youth and beauty as the be all and end all?

Just look at how old people are mainly ignored in society. Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

I can only provide a dull quotidian rant. Beauty and youth have never been something I’ve thought much about or focused on. But the frame you’ve presented is one I’ve heard for decades. When I was young, I was more interested in older people because they had experience and knew things I didn’t. I’ve always been more drawn to character, originality, and texture than to beauty, and most of my friends are similar. So I struggle to relate to the kind of picture you’ve presented, though I do recognize that advertising (often appealing to the lowest common denominator) manufactures trends and shapes interests by targeting certain insecurities around perceptions of beauty, etc. But should we give a fuck, and how many of us actually do?

Cosmetic surgery, exercise regimens, dieting, and fashion are all long-standing practices, driven more by people’s lack of confidence than anything else. We confuse physical appearance with success (just as we confuse wealth with success) only because we may not be nuanced enough to recognize that most of us already look fine, and that if we simply relaxed, we’d likely be both happier and more successful. In this sense, I don’t think we care that much beauty itself, only about the apparent currency or leverage it might hold.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. — Bob Ross

Of course, many atheists today don’t formulate it like that, even if it’s a traditional account. For me, an atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe there are gods. It’s not a knowledge claim; it’s a belief claim. As an atheist I simply say I am unconvinced by any god claims, including the arguments I have encountered, from CS Lewis to Aquinas.

All Christian religions must agree on this point, and that is, fundamentally, where our paths diverge. I got tired of being a sinner, I didn't put Jesus on a cross...so I changed my mind. — Paula Tozer

Christians don’t all agree on this. Many are taught that the Bible is metaphorical rather than literally true, and that God is not a “magic man in the sky.” Theistic personalism is only one way of construing God. For many Christians, God is understood as the ground of being: mysterious, unknowable, and certainly not a person. Closer to mysticism. Your argument is really directed at a very particular account of Christianity and God.

:up:

Kant scholars are divided between a 'dual worlds' interpretation where there is the phenomenal (empirical) world and the noumenal world and a 'dual aspect' interpretation where there is one world with both a phenomenal and a noumenal aspect. — Janus

Sounds like the Kantian conundrum equivalent to the Many-Worlds or Copenhagen Interpretations in QM. :razz:

:up:

If one were to put it this way: instead of consciousness arising from matter, matter arises within consciousness. In other words, reality is pure consciousness. It strikes me that, in a sense, Kant is a kind of dualist with his phenomena/noumena distinction. The “thing-in-itself,” however elusive, still functions as a foundational guarantee for our experience of phenomena. That seems less elegant than simply arguing that all is consciousness, with no independent “real world” needed that gives our experience of consciousness its shape. Thoughts?

My understanding is that Fichte had a similar issue and replaced noumenon with the notion of the “I.” He seems to avoid solipsism by positing the “I” as a transcendental consciousness that makes shared experience and intersubjectivity possible. This strikes me as wholly, or at least partly, compatible with Kastrup’s idea of Mind-at-Large, which he describes as non-metacognitive and the source of all consciousness.

Anyway…..light is always good. — Mww

Light is all I've got. :wink:

Yep, I got the gist from 'checkboxes'.

:up: fair points well made.

I think the conversation should be about something deeper than surface appearances like diversity and visible inclusion. We need to include people in our hearts, not just on paper with ethnic frouonandnsecualnorietstiin checkboxes. — Fire Ologist

Yes, that's reasonable.